9 ms·

> Also, what are they allowed to do? If the law in England were to be similar to the one in Scotland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Outdoor_Access_Cod

by NeoTar 2y ago

> Also, what are they allowed to do? If the law in England were to be similar to the one in Scotland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Outdoor_Access_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Outdoor_Access_Code), then "access rights can be exercised for recreational purposes, some educational activities and certain commercial purposes, and for crossing over land and water." "Access rights do not extend to motorised activities... Access rights do not include the right to hunt, shoot or fish... Gathering items such as mushrooms or berries for commercial gain is not covered by access rights; but the customary picking of wild fungi and berries for personal consumption is not prohibited under the code." "Wild camping, defined as lightweight camping by small numbers of people staying no more than two or three nights in any one place, is permitted under the code. ... The code requires that campers leave no trace, and must take away all litter, remove all traces of the tent pitch and of any open fire, and not cause any pollution" So, homeless encampments are not permitted since these would not fall under this code.

arethuza 2y ago
Some areas in Scotland also have bye-laws stopping camping during the summer months to reduce potential environment impact: e.g. https://www.lochlomond-trossachs.org/things-to-do/camping/campingbyelaws/ https://www.lochlomond-trossachs.org/things-to-do/camping/ca... These are relatively small areas though.
dahfizz 2y ago
I mean, are homeless encampments ever permitted? Yet they show up and are very hard to get rid of. Its not a can of worms I would want opened if I owned property on the west coast, that is for sure.
Pet_Ant 2y ago
> "Access rights do not extend to motorised activities... This seems problematic as there are remote properties that are only accessible through long trails. Stuff like ice fishing spots where you might need to snowmobile a few kilometers. Same with ATVs for deep woods camping. Personally, I have a registered trail through land I own and have no problem with it. I hope people get it to enjoy since I don't get enough chances to. I can't even get to it myself without passing through a dozen different lots.
- micromacrofoot 2y ago
  This might be an unpopular opinion. But if you need motorized conveyance to camp remotely... then you should probably not camp remotely. It's ok if some wild areas are less accessible.
  - rrix2 2y ago
    Yep, if people want to do that there are hundreds of miles of forest service roads they can use to drive in to our national forests.
    - Workaccount2 2y ago
      *cries in east coast* Seriously, we have nothing over here. All the land was bought up, often before there even was a united states. And the forests we do have tend to be very heavily regulated. You want to do anything it's all pay for permit and be clustered with a bunch of other permit buyers. I am not aware of single forest in the Northeast where you can just drive in, camp, and leave without breaking the law.
      - doctoboggan 2y ago
        I've done exactly what you describe (drive in, camp, leave without breaking the law) in the White Mountains in NH[0]. In general, dispersed camping[1] is legal in almost all national forest and BLM land. I think many people don't realize this but you can camp for free almost anywhere in a national forest (keeping certain distances from trails, roads and bodies of water) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Mountains_(New_England) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Mountains_(New_England) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersed_camping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersed_camping
        prometheus76 2y ago
        Isn't there a 14-day limit in National Parks?
hanniabu 2y ago
How do you prevent people from getting to close to your house and invading your privacy? Someone can come on your property with the intention to rob you, stalk you, etc and if they get caught they can just they were passing through. And unless you have cameras it would make it pretty difficult to prove otherwise. When you're out in the woods all alone that makes you pretty vulnerable and this isn't a situation I would want to be in.
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  It sounds like you're not a good candidate for an owner of a large parcel of wilderness. And that's ok! Not everyone has to own acres of undeveloped land! I think it's appropriate that some kinds of ownership are as much a responsibility as a privilege, similar to how not everyone is prepared to be responsible for river or stream running through their property. For a somewhat tortured metaphor, there are seats on planes that give extra leg room, as long as you're willing and able to help others in the case of an emergency. You get the benefit of the extra leg room, but you get the responsibility of helping others in an emergency. And that seems like a fair balance!
  - throwaway22032 2y ago
    They are not a candidate but in fact an actual owner. It is theirs and not yours.
    - BobaFloutist 2y ago
      That's ok, I'm a voting member of the general public, and if we decide it's to the benefit of us all for the public to have access to their land, we will!
      - tiberious726 2y ago
        So robbery? If you want it, you'll take it
        2y ago
Nextgrid 2y ago
> are not permitted since these would not fall under this code The thing is, the law/code only matters if it is enforced. I have little faith this will be enforced enough to be a deterrent when much more important things like shoplifting, bike or phone theft have effectively been decriminalized by lack of enforcement. Edit: to be clear I am just playing devil's advocate here. I am in favor of "right to roam" laws, just pointing out that restrictions in the law by themselves don't mean anything unless they're followed up by adequate enforcement to deter the prohibited behavior and systemic changes to make said behavior unnecessary in the first place (in case of homelessness for example).
- readyman 2y ago
  Scotland doesn't have the extreme levels of inequality that result in extreme levels of shoplifting, and therefore the shoplifting comparison doesn't hold up.
  - UberFly 2y ago
    Inequality isn't the correct term. It's poverty, drug abuse and mental illness. Poverty still isn't a green light to commit crimes though. There are plenty of places to seek help legally. Crime is as much a cultural problem as anything else.
    - OJFord 2y ago
      > Inequality isn't the correct term. It's poverty, drug abuse and mental illness. ...relative to others with less of that; hence an inequality.
      - Gormo 2y ago
        It's absolute poverty, drug abuse, and mental illness that constrain people's circumstances and influence their decisions. How similar or dissimilar a person's circumstances are to those of strangers they have no relationship with are not relevant.
    - 2y ago

by NeoTar 2y ago

arethuza 2y ago

Some areas in Scotland also have bye-laws stopping camping during the summer months to reduce potential environment impact: e.g. https://www.lochlomond-trossachs.org/things-to-do/camping/campingbyelaws/ https://www.lochlomond-trossachs.org/things-to-do/camping/ca... These are relatively small areas though.

dahfizz 2y ago

I mean, are homeless encampments ever permitted? Yet they show up and are very hard to get rid of. Its not a can of worms I would want opened if I owned property on the west coast, that is for sure.

Pet_Ant 2y ago

> "Access rights do not extend to motorised activities... This seems problematic as there are remote properties that are only accessible through long trails. Stuff like ice fishing spots where you might need to snowmobile a few kilometers. Same with ATVs for deep woods camping. Personally, I have a registered trail through land I own and have no problem with it. I hope people get it to enjoy since I don't get enough chances to. I can't even get to it myself without passing through a dozen different lots.

micromacrofoot 2y ago
This might be an unpopular opinion. But if you need motorized conveyance to camp remotely... then you should probably not camp remotely. It's ok if some wild areas are less accessible.
- rrix2 2y ago
  Yep, if people want to do that there are hundreds of miles of forest service roads they can use to drive in to our national forests.
  - Workaccount2 2y ago
    *cries in east coast* Seriously, we have nothing over here. All the land was bought up, often before there even was a united states. And the forests we do have tend to be very heavily regulated. You want to do anything it's all pay for permit and be clustered with a bunch of other permit buyers. I am not aware of single forest in the Northeast where you can just drive in, camp, and leave without breaking the law.
    - doctoboggan 2y ago
      I've done exactly what you describe (drive in, camp, leave without breaking the law) in the White Mountains in NH[0]. In general, dispersed camping[1] is legal in almost all national forest and BLM land. I think many people don't realize this but you can camp for free almost anywhere in a national forest (keeping certain distances from trails, roads and bodies of water) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Mountains_(New_England) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Mountains_(New_England) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersed_camping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersed_camping
      - prometheus76 2y ago
        Isn't there a 14-day limit in National Parks?

hanniabu 2y ago

How do you prevent people from getting to close to your house and invading your privacy? Someone can come on your property with the intention to rob you, stalk you, etc and if they get caught they can just they were passing through. And unless you have cameras it would make it pretty difficult to prove otherwise. When you're out in the woods all alone that makes you pretty vulnerable and this isn't a situation I would want to be in.

BobaFloutist 2y ago
It sounds like you're not a good candidate for an owner of a large parcel of wilderness. And that's ok! Not everyone has to own acres of undeveloped land! I think it's appropriate that some kinds of ownership are as much a responsibility as a privilege, similar to how not everyone is prepared to be responsible for river or stream running through their property. For a somewhat tortured metaphor, there are seats on planes that give extra leg room, as long as you're willing and able to help others in the case of an emergency. You get the benefit of the extra leg room, but you get the responsibility of helping others in an emergency. And that seems like a fair balance!
- throwaway22032 2y ago
  They are not a candidate but in fact an actual owner. It is theirs and not yours.
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    That's ok, I'm a voting member of the general public, and if we decide it's to the benefit of us all for the public to have access to their land, we will!
    - tiberious726 2y ago
      So robbery? If you want it, you'll take it
      - 2y ago

Nextgrid 2y ago

> are not permitted since these would not fall under this code The thing is, the law/code only matters if it is enforced. I have little faith this will be enforced enough to be a deterrent when much more important things like shoplifting, bike or phone theft have effectively been decriminalized by lack of enforcement. Edit: to be clear I am just playing devil's advocate here. I am in favor of "right to roam" laws, just pointing out that restrictions in the law by themselves don't mean anything unless they're followed up by adequate enforcement to deter the prohibited behavior and systemic changes to make said behavior unnecessary in the first place (in case of homelessness for example).

readyman 2y ago
Scotland doesn't have the extreme levels of inequality that result in extreme levels of shoplifting, and therefore the shoplifting comparison doesn't hold up.
- UberFly 2y ago
  Inequality isn't the correct term. It's poverty, drug abuse and mental illness. Poverty still isn't a green light to commit crimes though. There are plenty of places to seek help legally. Crime is as much a cultural problem as anything else.
  - OJFord 2y ago
    > Inequality isn't the correct term. It's poverty, drug abuse and mental illness. ...relative to others with less of that; hence an inequality.
    - Gormo 2y ago
      It's absolute poverty, drug abuse, and mental illness that constrain people's circumstances and influence their decisions. How similar or dissimilar a person's circumstances are to those of strangers they have no relationship with are not relevant.
  - 2y ago