3 ms·

> Oh, you have to care about who owns the land in order to camp in the wilderness? Bummer. Downvoted because of the obnoxious tone of your comment. You could h

by pcl 3y ago

> Oh, you have to care about who owns the land in order to camp in the wilderness? Bummer. Downvoted because of the obnoxious tone of your comment. You could have made the same point in a more-engaging way. I've lived and camped in countries with freedom to roam, and I've lived and camped in the US. I think that freedom to roam is a really cool notion, and also I think it's great that so much of the United States is owned by federal and state governments, rather than by individuals -- 40% according to one source [1]. In the UK, for example, only 8% of land is publicly-owned [2]. [1] https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentages-by-us-states/186111#chapter_2 https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentag... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-engla...

OfSanguineFire 3y ago
Within the overlanding and bicycle-touring community, there are frequent complaints that so much of the federal-owned land in the United States (BLM land) is out west. If your travels are towards the east of the country, it can become very challenging to camp. In the Nordic countries that have freedom to roam, that freedom to roam is everywhere, even right outside the major metropolitan areas.
- Ostrogoth 3y ago
  With family roots in ranching, one of the concerns with freedom to roam in the US for landowners (in particular for land used for livestock and agriculture) is a lack of respect for others/natural resources. Existing public use areas in the US already regularly get trashed in some parts of the country by those who fail to practice leave-no-trace. And my family has had existing issues with poachers and trespassers cutting fences, leaving gates open (which becomes a liability when livestock enter roads), and even shooting livestock. I personally like the idea of FTR, but putting on my ranching hat to see from that perspective, we might need additional legal protections to protect landowners from damages and liability.
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    Yet the BLM land is mainly distributed precisely in those western regions where also ranching is done. Campers don’t feel such a need to roam on ranching land, because they could plan a trip around the BLM land. Out east where there isn’t much BLM land, there isn’t much ranching either. I definitely understand the harm that inconsiderate travelers can do. Throughout Latin America ranchers are quite accepting of cyclists crossing their land, but the one thing you hear them complaining about is those cyclists not closing gates behind them.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  >Within the overlanding and bicycle-touring community, there are frequent complaints that so much of the federal-owned land in the United States (BLM land) is out west. Not only that, but much of that land is basically uninhabitable; there's a reason it's all managed by the BLM. It's not really a good place for hanging out in nature unless you can haul a LOT of water with you. It's far from civilization, much of it is arid, there isn't much cover if any. Even the roads aren't really fit for riding a bicycle (or even driving a car); you could use a full-suspension mountain bike I suppose, but that's not what bicycle touring is about.
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    > you could use a full-suspension mountain bike I suppose, but that's not what bicycle touring is about. But it is what “bikepacking”[0] is about, a term that over the last decade has started to crowd out “bicycle touring” among younger generations. People are intentionally searching for rough roads, even singletrack and hiking trails, and especially in North America! (But you overestimate the need for suspension.) Water is indeed something one has to plan around. I have cycled several hundred km of rough roads in the American West and met quite a lot of people living in vehicles on BLM land, just moving every two weeks. They of course were able to haul in all the water they needed for days on end, while a cyclist on rough roads can carry no more than about 15 liters at a time. [0] http://bikepacking.com http://bikepacking.com
avgcorrection 3y ago
> Downvoted because You’re an American national? I like how you take offense to my banter tone (obnoxious) and then bring up a national park squarage comparison out of nowhere. Just embrace the pissing contest.

by pcl 3y ago

OfSanguineFire 3y ago

Within the overlanding and bicycle-touring community, there are frequent complaints that so much of the federal-owned land in the United States (BLM land) is out west. If your travels are towards the east of the country, it can become very challenging to camp. In the Nordic countries that have freedom to roam, that freedom to roam is everywhere, even right outside the major metropolitan areas.

Ostrogoth 3y ago
With family roots in ranching, one of the concerns with freedom to roam in the US for landowners (in particular for land used for livestock and agriculture) is a lack of respect for others/natural resources. Existing public use areas in the US already regularly get trashed in some parts of the country by those who fail to practice leave-no-trace. And my family has had existing issues with poachers and trespassers cutting fences, leaving gates open (which becomes a liability when livestock enter roads), and even shooting livestock. I personally like the idea of FTR, but putting on my ranching hat to see from that perspective, we might need additional legal protections to protect landowners from damages and liability.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  Yet the BLM land is mainly distributed precisely in those western regions where also ranching is done. Campers don’t feel such a need to roam on ranching land, because they could plan a trip around the BLM land. Out east where there isn’t much BLM land, there isn’t much ranching either. I definitely understand the harm that inconsiderate travelers can do. Throughout Latin America ranchers are quite accepting of cyclists crossing their land, but the one thing you hear them complaining about is those cyclists not closing gates behind them.
shiroiuma 3y ago
>Within the overlanding and bicycle-touring community, there are frequent complaints that so much of the federal-owned land in the United States (BLM land) is out west. Not only that, but much of that land is basically uninhabitable; there's a reason it's all managed by the BLM. It's not really a good place for hanging out in nature unless you can haul a LOT of water with you. It's far from civilization, much of it is arid, there isn't much cover if any. Even the roads aren't really fit for riding a bicycle (or even driving a car); you could use a full-suspension mountain bike I suppose, but that's not what bicycle touring is about.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  > you could use a full-suspension mountain bike I suppose, but that's not what bicycle touring is about. But it is what “bikepacking”[0] is about, a term that over the last decade has started to crowd out “bicycle touring” among younger generations. People are intentionally searching for rough roads, even singletrack and hiking trails, and especially in North America! (But you overestimate the need for suspension.) Water is indeed something one has to plan around. I have cycled several hundred km of rough roads in the American West and met quite a lot of people living in vehicles on BLM land, just moving every two weeks. They of course were able to haul in all the water they needed for days on end, while a cyclist on rough roads can carry no more than about 15 liters at a time. [0] http://bikepacking.com http://bikepacking.com

avgcorrection 3y ago

> Downvoted because You’re an American national? I like how you take offense to my banter tone (obnoxious) and then bring up a national park squarage comparison out of nowhere. Just embrace the pissing contest.