3 ms·

In Maine, great ponds are considered public and you must allow public access even if your land surrounds the water. This does not mean that you have the right t

In Maine, great ponds are considered public and you must allow public access even if your land surrounds the water. This does not mean that you have the right to trample their farms or ride your dirt bike, but you must allow access at least by foot. I think this should be the model for all public land.

robomartin 4y ago
Meanwhile, in California: I live within walking distance of a lake. We take frequent walks there. If I so much as touch the water with my big toe, I could get a ticket/citation. If I insist, I could be arrested. If I jump into the water (even wearing a floatation vest), same thing. You are only allowed to be in the water while lifeguards are present, and only for a few seconds if you fall off your paddleboard or something like that. If you are walking along the shore with water up to your ankles, lifeguard or not, you could be cited. No, this is not a source of drinking water at all. Every time I go to the lake I have the same thought: So much for "land of the free". Note: Yes, of course, I understand this is mostly because people have sued and extracted money from the State/County, etc. That's likely the root cause. The solution isn't to ban everyone.
- mmcgaha 4y ago
  We are much more liberal here in Maine. You can basically go anywhere you want on unimproved land so long as it is not posted no trespass.
- mcv 4y ago
  Why? And on what basis would people sue the state/county? If it's public land, shouldn't people simply be allowed to swim at their own risk? And do I understand correctly that paddleboarding is allowed? Because that really makes no sense.
  - robomartin 4y ago
    People have drowned. Lawsuits have extracted millions of dollars. That's the best explanation I can offer. Yes, paddleboards are allowed. Kayaks too. No power boats. Don't ask, I don't have the answers. I can tell you I have seen people do truly stupid things on the lake. Like load-up a canoe with people and ice chests and go into the lake when they obviously have no clue what they are doing. We've been kayaking this lake for 25 years. I wear a vest every time. And I am an excellent swimmer with open water experience. If you don't respect water, you die, it's that simple. Once you get to the point where everyone is a victim despite their stupidity, the only option left is to restrict absolutely everyone to the extent possible. That's the way I see this may have evolved. I don't know.
- hcknwscommenter 4y ago
  This makes zero sense to me. There are thousands of lakes in the Sierras that are on "state" or "county" or "federal" land. None of those are subject to the bizarre rules you posit. There must be something different about who actually owns/manages the lake you refer to? Or perhaps you are mistakenly under the impression that specific rules that exist for a particular beach you use for access(and accompanying watery recreational area) apply to the whole lake?
  - robomartin 4y ago
    Los Angeles County. > Or perhaps you are mistakenly under the impression Not the case. We've been using the lake for 25 years. I know most of the lifeguards, including the director of the department. They know me well because I used to get into the lake on my kayak with a dry-suit in full-blown Santa Ana winds. In other words, over the years, they came to understand it was unlikely they would have to rescue me or my kids. Anyhow, one day I was there with my German Shepherds just hanging out, walking on the beech. The director of the lifeguards just happened to be on the patrol boat on duty that day. He came over to say hi and very clearly told me something akin to "You know, Martin, I could site you and even arrest you for getting your feet into the water anywhere in this lake". That led to something like "You have to be fucking kidding me". "No, I am not". And then we had a conversation. He didn't like it any more than I did. Now that I remember, he did make mention of people drowning and lawsuits. I'm pretty sure that's the genesis of the regulation. While I can't find the rule in writing, I recall having seen a document with this information (this was probably 15 years ago).
    - SpelingBeeChamp 4y ago
      >The director of the lifeguards just happened to be on the patrol boat on duty that day. He came over to say hi and very clearly told me something akin to "You know, Martin, I could site you and even arrest you The lifeguard has police authority?
      - robomartin 4y ago
        They have the right to make misdemeanor arrests. They can also issue citations.
- pc86 4y ago
  > The solution isn't to ban everyone. So long as the legal system allows leeches to extract money from the state because they slipped on a rock that was underwater, and so long as the county doesn't see any point in spending the resources to vigorously fight or counter-sue, yes that is unfortunately the only solution.
Enginerrrd 4y ago
I'd caveat that this should apply to land over a certain size, and the landowner shouldn't have to build/maintain a road, but otherwise yeah, I agree.
nicoburns 4y ago
In the UK this principle applies even to private land in most cases. Not people’s back gardens, but if you own a large amount of land, they’ll almost always be public rights of way through it. And even where there’s not, you’ll usually be alright crossing it so long as you’re not making a nuisance of yourself. The idea that so much land is privately owned and shut off to everyone else seems downright dystopian to me. https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-your-right-to-roam https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-your-ri...
- mcv 4y ago
  I'd say a rule that you can cross private land that's not in active use (built, fenced off, etc), but camping or hunting on that private land is not allowed (without permission), would sound quite reasonable to me.

robomartin 4y ago

Meanwhile, in California: I live within walking distance of a lake. We take frequent walks there. If I so much as touch the water with my big toe, I could get a ticket/citation. If I insist, I could be arrested. If I jump into the water (even wearing a floatation vest), same thing. You are only allowed to be in the water while lifeguards are present, and only for a few seconds if you fall off your paddleboard or something like that. If you are walking along the shore with water up to your ankles, lifeguard or not, you could be cited. No, this is not a source of drinking water at all. Every time I go to the lake I have the same thought: So much for "land of the free". Note: Yes, of course, I understand this is mostly because people have sued and extracted money from the State/County, etc. That's likely the root cause. The solution isn't to ban everyone.

mmcgaha 4y ago
We are much more liberal here in Maine. You can basically go anywhere you want on unimproved land so long as it is not posted no trespass.
mcv 4y ago
Why? And on what basis would people sue the state/county? If it's public land, shouldn't people simply be allowed to swim at their own risk? And do I understand correctly that paddleboarding is allowed? Because that really makes no sense.
- robomartin 4y ago
  People have drowned. Lawsuits have extracted millions of dollars. That's the best explanation I can offer. Yes, paddleboards are allowed. Kayaks too. No power boats. Don't ask, I don't have the answers. I can tell you I have seen people do truly stupid things on the lake. Like load-up a canoe with people and ice chests and go into the lake when they obviously have no clue what they are doing. We've been kayaking this lake for 25 years. I wear a vest every time. And I am an excellent swimmer with open water experience. If you don't respect water, you die, it's that simple. Once you get to the point where everyone is a victim despite their stupidity, the only option left is to restrict absolutely everyone to the extent possible. That's the way I see this may have evolved. I don't know.
hcknwscommenter 4y ago
This makes zero sense to me. There are thousands of lakes in the Sierras that are on "state" or "county" or "federal" land. None of those are subject to the bizarre rules you posit. There must be something different about who actually owns/manages the lake you refer to? Or perhaps you are mistakenly under the impression that specific rules that exist for a particular beach you use for access(and accompanying watery recreational area) apply to the whole lake?
- robomartin 4y ago
  Los Angeles County. > Or perhaps you are mistakenly under the impression Not the case. We've been using the lake for 25 years. I know most of the lifeguards, including the director of the department. They know me well because I used to get into the lake on my kayak with a dry-suit in full-blown Santa Ana winds. In other words, over the years, they came to understand it was unlikely they would have to rescue me or my kids. Anyhow, one day I was there with my German Shepherds just hanging out, walking on the beech. The director of the lifeguards just happened to be on the patrol boat on duty that day. He came over to say hi and very clearly told me something akin to "You know, Martin, I could site you and even arrest you for getting your feet into the water anywhere in this lake". That led to something like "You have to be fucking kidding me". "No, I am not". And then we had a conversation. He didn't like it any more than I did. Now that I remember, he did make mention of people drowning and lawsuits. I'm pretty sure that's the genesis of the regulation. While I can't find the rule in writing, I recall having seen a document with this information (this was probably 15 years ago).
  - SpelingBeeChamp 4y ago
    >The director of the lifeguards just happened to be on the patrol boat on duty that day. He came over to say hi and very clearly told me something akin to "You know, Martin, I could site you and even arrest you The lifeguard has police authority?
    - robomartin 4y ago
      They have the right to make misdemeanor arrests. They can also issue citations.
pc86 4y ago
> The solution isn't to ban everyone. So long as the legal system allows leeches to extract money from the state because they slipped on a rock that was underwater, and so long as the county doesn't see any point in spending the resources to vigorously fight or counter-sue, yes that is unfortunately the only solution.

Enginerrrd 4y ago

I'd caveat that this should apply to land over a certain size, and the landowner shouldn't have to build/maintain a road, but otherwise yeah, I agree.

nicoburns 4y ago

In the UK this principle applies even to private land in most cases. Not people’s back gardens, but if you own a large amount of land, they’ll almost always be public rights of way through it. And even where there’s not, you’ll usually be alright crossing it so long as you’re not making a nuisance of yourself. The idea that so much land is privately owned and shut off to everyone else seems downright dystopian to me. https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-your-right-to-roam https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-your-ri...

mcv 4y ago
I'd say a rule that you can cross private land that's not in active use (built, fenced off, etc), but camping or hunting on that private land is not allowed (without permission), would sound quite reasonable to me.