4 ms·

I’d also add litter, trampling of grass/shrubbery, illegal structures (e.g. deer stands/blinds), theft (picking flowers, berries, apples, vegetables), and idiot

I’d also add litter, trampling of grass/shrubbery, illegal structures (e.g. deer stands/blinds), theft (picking flowers, berries, apples, vegetables), and idiots trying to pet or take pictures with livestock that weigh 20x what they do. These are all things my family deals with despite our farm being posted no trespassing the entire perimeter. I literally can not imagine how bad it would be if people felt legally entitled to be there + how hard it would be to get law enforcement involved (“I’m not poaching, I was just taking the scenic route…”)

maxerickson 2y ago
In Michigan, agricultural land is treated as if it is posted, so you are trespassing if you go on it, no notice required. I would think that is not uncommon.
- Loughla 2y ago
  In Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri, it has to be explicitly signed via actual signs, or purple paint (relatively recent laws allow this in rural areas). Alaska requires signs. Indiana requires signs. Those are the states I am familiar with. I believe the states that do not require notice are in the minority, but I'm not sure how to prove that.
lambdaxyzw 2y ago
>litter, trampling of grass/shrubbery Obviously illegal, in public places too, do no relation to the topic discussed. >theft Come on. Theft is obviously illegal everywhere. >idiots trying to pet or take pictures with livestock that weigh 20x what they do Good thing is that it anyone is hurt in this scenario it's the idiot. Why worry about it? >I literally can not imagine how bad it would be if people felt legally entitled to be there + how hard it would be to get law enforcement involved I used to do a lot of hiking (in Spain, France, and some other European mountain ranges). Many remote routes go nearby or through someone's fields or even properties (like through someone's backyard). There are many farm animals on the trails or just next to them. Fortunately nobody here cares and we are all more happy because of it
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  > illegal I'd imagine it's not about being illegal; probably more about the actual trouble of getting appropriate compensation on top of the fact that you have to catch the person who did it in the first place. > Good thing is that it anyone is hurt in this scenario it's the idiot. Why worry about it? American culture is very litigious. It's linked elsewhere in the thread but maybe also useful here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine. Not exactly idiots but perhaps people who are a little naive. Although, I also wouldn't be particularly surprised to learn of a case involving adults.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  These were provided as reasons why people dont want strangers on their land. Im not sure how actions being illegal is a dismissal of the concerns. People doing illegal things is one of the main drivers for not wanting anyone on the land.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    These activities are the post-facto justifications folks typically toss up when objecting to people on their land, but I find their lack of imagination dull beyond belief. If we're constructing hypotheticals around potential bad behavior by unknown actors, spice it up a bit! Why not claim you don't want folks on your land because you're worried someone will construct an unlicensed breeder reactor or idk, perform rituals designed to summon the Elder Ones? Full Disclosure: I've gotten belligerent with folks crossing my yard to get to the municipal bus stop on my property and spent significant time and effort trying to get it moved off my block. I've intentionally planted invasives along property boundaries to block neighbors views into my property, put up posted signs in a residential neighborhood, and once gleefully ignored a hedgerow full of poison ivy to the point the actual Department of Transportation contacted me to complain about it making the corner of my property unnavigable to foot traffic and a hazard to road traffic. I offer no excuses for any of that, I don't want randos on my property because by and large I despise human beings. All of that is to say I think the entire conversation around ownership rights vs public rights could use a bit more honesty from the landowners who are either afraid of strangers or hate people in general.
mauvehaus 2y ago
Counterpoint: the people who are observing your boundaries currently are precisely the ones who wouldn't make a mess of it and do stupid stuff. And there's probably a set of people using it who aren't being dipshits who you don't know about. The idiots are already doing the things you don't want them to do and allowing them to roam isn't going to change that. The problematic behaviors are the ones the laws should target (and perhaps already do, e.g. having a blind up without landowner permission is illegal where I live). Merely being on another's property shouldn't be cause to involve law enforcement. I have supported the right to roam (and generally treated posted property as "open to respectful and responsible use") for years, and that has not changed since becoming a home and landowner. Our land is wooded, not agricultural, and I have no issue with kindly use by all.
- balderdash 2y ago
  I agree that most will use the land kindly, as you put it, but you can’t convince me that increased traffic/volume will not result in increased damage (though the per capita damage rate will likely go down).

maxerickson 2y ago

In Michigan, agricultural land is treated as if it is posted, so you are trespassing if you go on it, no notice required. I would think that is not uncommon.

Loughla 2y ago
In Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri, it has to be explicitly signed via actual signs, or purple paint (relatively recent laws allow this in rural areas). Alaska requires signs. Indiana requires signs. Those are the states I am familiar with. I believe the states that do not require notice are in the minority, but I'm not sure how to prove that.

lambdaxyzw 2y ago

>litter, trampling of grass/shrubbery Obviously illegal, in public places too, do no relation to the topic discussed. >theft Come on. Theft is obviously illegal everywhere. >idiots trying to pet or take pictures with livestock that weigh 20x what they do Good thing is that it anyone is hurt in this scenario it's the idiot. Why worry about it? >I literally can not imagine how bad it would be if people felt legally entitled to be there + how hard it would be to get law enforcement involved I used to do a lot of hiking (in Spain, France, and some other European mountain ranges). Many remote routes go nearby or through someone's fields or even properties (like through someone's backyard). There are many farm animals on the trails or just next to them. Fortunately nobody here cares and we are all more happy because of it

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
> illegal I'd imagine it's not about being illegal; probably more about the actual trouble of getting appropriate compensation on top of the fact that you have to catch the person who did it in the first place. > Good thing is that it anyone is hurt in this scenario it's the idiot. Why worry about it? American culture is very litigious. It's linked elsewhere in the thread but maybe also useful here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine. Not exactly idiots but perhaps people who are a little naive. Although, I also wouldn't be particularly surprised to learn of a case involving adults.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
These were provided as reasons why people dont want strangers on their land. Im not sure how actions being illegal is a dismissal of the concerns. People doing illegal things is one of the main drivers for not wanting anyone on the land.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  These activities are the post-facto justifications folks typically toss up when objecting to people on their land, but I find their lack of imagination dull beyond belief. If we're constructing hypotheticals around potential bad behavior by unknown actors, spice it up a bit! Why not claim you don't want folks on your land because you're worried someone will construct an unlicensed breeder reactor or idk, perform rituals designed to summon the Elder Ones? Full Disclosure: I've gotten belligerent with folks crossing my yard to get to the municipal bus stop on my property and spent significant time and effort trying to get it moved off my block. I've intentionally planted invasives along property boundaries to block neighbors views into my property, put up posted signs in a residential neighborhood, and once gleefully ignored a hedgerow full of poison ivy to the point the actual Department of Transportation contacted me to complain about it making the corner of my property unnavigable to foot traffic and a hazard to road traffic. I offer no excuses for any of that, I don't want randos on my property because by and large I despise human beings. All of that is to say I think the entire conversation around ownership rights vs public rights could use a bit more honesty from the landowners who are either afraid of strangers or hate people in general.

mauvehaus 2y ago

Counterpoint: the people who are observing your boundaries currently are precisely the ones who wouldn't make a mess of it and do stupid stuff. And there's probably a set of people using it who aren't being dipshits who you don't know about. The idiots are already doing the things you don't want them to do and allowing them to roam isn't going to change that. The problematic behaviors are the ones the laws should target (and perhaps already do, e.g. having a blind up without landowner permission is illegal where I live). Merely being on another's property shouldn't be cause to involve law enforcement. I have supported the right to roam (and generally treated posted property as "open to respectful and responsible use") for years, and that has not changed since becoming a home and landowner. Our land is wooded, not agricultural, and I have no issue with kindly use by all.

balderdash 2y ago
I agree that most will use the land kindly, as you put it, but you can’t convince me that increased traffic/volume will not result in increased damage (though the per capita damage rate will likely go down).