3 ms·

>litter, trampling of grass/shrubbery Obviously illegal, in public places too, do no relation to the topic discussed. >theft Come on. Theft is obviously ille

>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.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    The examples are obscure because people are providing examples from a very broad and diverse class. The category "things you dont want done to or with your property" has millions of things in it, so if you pick 5 randomly they will be odd and dissimilar. That doesn't mean they arent real or legitimate concerns. I dont think attitudes against trespassing is just fear or misanthropy. Enforcing a permitter is a completely logical method to reduce the number of people doing undesirable things within the perimeter. It is used all the time all over the world as a pre-emptive control.
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      Understand I don't disagree with you in any meaningful sense, and it may be more of a regional issue (I live in the South), but quite frequently these kinds of excuses are trundled out when what was actually meant is some combination of "the poors disgust me" or "I'm terrified of brown people". :/
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Perhaps it is regional. I grew up in a rural area that was very white. We had issues with people riding dirtbikes and tearing up our land leading to sand traps. We had vehicles and tools stolen, and one case of home burglary. Most common was hunters trespassing to hunt game we cultivated, and sometimes shooting towards our house. Im sure some of these people were poor, but my distaste for trespassers doesnt come from that. property rights and no trespassing sings provide a practical tool to for protecting your property. You might not see someone snooping around your garage, but you are more likely to detect them if they are not allowed within a mile of your house.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    > If we're constructing hypotheticals around potential bad behavior by unknown actors, spice it up a bit! > I've gotten belligerent with folks crossing my yard to get to the municipal bus stop on my property So you want people to come up with unlikely reasons, then immediately turn around and deliver your own "dull beyond belief" example? Have you considered that other people's "hypotheticals" are also "boring" because those are the things they're actually worried about?
toss1 2y ago
>>Good thing is that [if] anyone is hurt in this scenario it's the idiot. Why worry about it? Because then the idiot or his/her family will sue YOU for the consequences of their stupidity. It happens ALL the time. And even if you win the lawsuit, you lose, because you must defend yourself and your property at the cost of insane amounts of time and tens- to hundreds-of-thousands of dollars. So, even, if you win, you lose. Just because some trespasser was an idiot. Things would change a lot if liability laws were changed so that if you are on someone else's property, the default is that it is at your risk (absent actual intentional man-traps which are already illegal). But this is not the case. >>Fortunately nobody here cares and we are all more happy because of it Yes, that is nice. The laws are different there, and they should be here. But a famous hiking trail in iirc Colorado was recently closed due to liability concerns crossing private property, and someone got sued. When the law was changed, it was again opened up. Just because we want things to be a certain way, does not mean they are that way. Until the REALITY is changed to the better way, do not ridicule people for recognizing and acting on the actual reality. (When it changes, they'll likely change too, and of they don't, then you can ridicule them.)
joenot443 2y ago
We’ve got horses and alpacas on our farm in Ontario, it’s super common for tourists with their hiking poles and huge cameras to venture off the Bruce Trail and onto our land to take photos with our animals. Obviously they don’t mean any harm, but horses can be super dangerous and a kick to the head is fatal for humans. What separates places like Canada or USA from Western Europe is that here there’s an entire industry of litigators chomping at the bit for a case like that, regardless of how much of an idiot you think that person is. I’m not happy with the system either, but it’s a reality here.
nullc 2y ago
The relevant point is that the illegality of those actions themselves only help if you manage to catch someone in the act during the few moments they're performing them. Vs trespassing when you can exclude people with alarmed fences and can catch them during the prolonged period when they're on your property, even preventing them from getting sight of whatever they might choose to steal or vandalize... it's an orders of magnitude difference in costs and effectiveness. > Good thing is that it anyone is hurt in this scenario it's the idiot. Why worry about it? Because they can sue. Often successfully, but even where they would not ultimately be successful they can cause enough costs to extort you for a settlement.

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.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  The examples are obscure because people are providing examples from a very broad and diverse class. The category "things you dont want done to or with your property" has millions of things in it, so if you pick 5 randomly they will be odd and dissimilar. That doesn't mean they arent real or legitimate concerns. I dont think attitudes against trespassing is just fear or misanthropy. Enforcing a permitter is a completely logical method to reduce the number of people doing undesirable things within the perimeter. It is used all the time all over the world as a pre-emptive control.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    Understand I don't disagree with you in any meaningful sense, and it may be more of a regional issue (I live in the South), but quite frequently these kinds of excuses are trundled out when what was actually meant is some combination of "the poors disgust me" or "I'm terrified of brown people". :/
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Perhaps it is regional. I grew up in a rural area that was very white. We had issues with people riding dirtbikes and tearing up our land leading to sand traps. We had vehicles and tools stolen, and one case of home burglary. Most common was hunters trespassing to hunt game we cultivated, and sometimes shooting towards our house. Im sure some of these people were poor, but my distaste for trespassers doesnt come from that. property rights and no trespassing sings provide a practical tool to for protecting your property. You might not see someone snooping around your garage, but you are more likely to detect them if they are not allowed within a mile of your house.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  > If we're constructing hypotheticals around potential bad behavior by unknown actors, spice it up a bit! > I've gotten belligerent with folks crossing my yard to get to the municipal bus stop on my property So you want people to come up with unlikely reasons, then immediately turn around and deliver your own "dull beyond belief" example? Have you considered that other people's "hypotheticals" are also "boring" because those are the things they're actually worried about?

toss1 2y ago

>>Good thing is that [if] anyone is hurt in this scenario it's the idiot. Why worry about it? Because then the idiot or his/her family will sue YOU for the consequences of their stupidity. It happens ALL the time. And even if you win the lawsuit, you lose, because you must defend yourself and your property at the cost of insane amounts of time and tens- to hundreds-of-thousands of dollars. So, even, if you win, you lose. Just because some trespasser was an idiot. Things would change a lot if liability laws were changed so that if you are on someone else's property, the default is that it is at your risk (absent actual intentional man-traps which are already illegal). But this is not the case. >>Fortunately nobody here cares and we are all more happy because of it Yes, that is nice. The laws are different there, and they should be here. But a famous hiking trail in iirc Colorado was recently closed due to liability concerns crossing private property, and someone got sued. When the law was changed, it was again opened up. Just because we want things to be a certain way, does not mean they are that way. Until the REALITY is changed to the better way, do not ridicule people for recognizing and acting on the actual reality. (When it changes, they'll likely change too, and of they don't, then you can ridicule them.)

joenot443 2y ago

We’ve got horses and alpacas on our farm in Ontario, it’s super common for tourists with their hiking poles and huge cameras to venture off the Bruce Trail and onto our land to take photos with our animals. Obviously they don’t mean any harm, but horses can be super dangerous and a kick to the head is fatal for humans. What separates places like Canada or USA from Western Europe is that here there’s an entire industry of litigators chomping at the bit for a case like that, regardless of how much of an idiot you think that person is. I’m not happy with the system either, but it’s a reality here.

nullc 2y ago

The relevant point is that the illegality of those actions themselves only help if you manage to catch someone in the act during the few moments they're performing them. Vs trespassing when you can exclude people with alarmed fences and can catch them during the prolonged period when they're on your property, even preventing them from getting sight of whatever they might choose to steal or vandalize... it's an orders of magnitude difference in costs and effectiveness. > Good thing is that it anyone is hurt in this scenario it's the idiot. Why worry about it? Because they can sue. Often successfully, but even where they would not ultimately be successful they can cause enough costs to extort you for a settlement.