4 ms·

I think the problem is that there doesn't appear to be any plan to manage the land usage. In the US, there is tons of public land, but there are giant federal a

by codexb 2y ago

I think the problem is that there doesn't appear to be any plan to manage the land usage. In the US, there is tons of public land, but there are giant federal and state departments that manage it, and there are entire books of rules for how that land can be used. The public land is a collectively owned asset that is managed for public benefit. Areas can be closed off, or require permits, or limited to a specific usage. The "right to roam" seems almost completely unregulated with no power to manager or limit this public asset. It's a right without any responsibility.

aramova 2y ago
> It's a right without any responsibility. How can you say something so controversial yet so brave?
mauvehaus 2y ago
There's certainly a responsibility to follow other applicable laws. You aren't allowed to litter or murder your hiking buddy on private property even if you're allowed to be on it.
- codexb 2y ago
  I'm talking more about permitted usage. In the US, public land is public, but you can't just use it however you'd like. Things like, can you camp overnight? Can you camp anywhere or just in specific locations? Can you use a horse or a bike or an ATV? Are you allowed to have a firearm? Can you fish? Can you hunt? Can you do professional photography? Do you need to stay on trails. Can you access the area by boat? Can you use radio-controlled model aircraft or cars? Drones? In the US, the answers to all these questions are different depending on which piece of public land it is. Each is managed separately based on what is most important about the land and the people and wildlife around it. It's just not clear that nearly as much thought is being put into the management handling these competing priorities in this case. There's almost an expectation that each landowner will be able to manage it themselves, without having any authority to really enforce any of their management decisions.

by codexb 2y ago

aramova 2y ago

> It's a right without any responsibility. How can you say something so controversial yet so brave?

mauvehaus 2y ago

There's certainly a responsibility to follow other applicable laws. You aren't allowed to litter or murder your hiking buddy on private property even if you're allowed to be on it.

codexb 2y ago
I'm talking more about permitted usage. In the US, public land is public, but you can't just use it however you'd like. Things like, can you camp overnight? Can you camp anywhere or just in specific locations? Can you use a horse or a bike or an ATV? Are you allowed to have a firearm? Can you fish? Can you hunt? Can you do professional photography? Do you need to stay on trails. Can you access the area by boat? Can you use radio-controlled model aircraft or cars? Drones? In the US, the answers to all these questions are different depending on which piece of public land it is. Each is managed separately based on what is most important about the land and the people and wildlife around it. It's just not clear that nearly as much thought is being put into the management handling these competing priorities in this case. There's almost an expectation that each landowner will be able to manage it themselves, without having any authority to really enforce any of their management decisions.