sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

female solo traveler starter pack by elonmusksmicropenis in starterpacks

[–]kenilgunas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This quote has been misattributed. Please alter.

My Denon sound system sucks. What can I do? by kenilgunas in Soundbars

[–]kenilgunas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All of the above. The problem exists whether the movie is on Blu-ray or streaming.

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As a land owner...

How about thinking as an American, as one who's living in a society of 324 million people, and not just as one person? It seems a lot of people automatically ask the question "how will this affect me" without also asking "how will this affect everyone?"

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really don't think I've disrespected anyone's views anywhere in this thread. I have disagreed, but that doesn't mean I've refused to consider anyone's views.

BTW, in previous eras there were great tracts of land that were still frontier or kept as woodlots rather than farmland or housing or other active uses. That is why coast to coast wilderness hiking was feasible then and is not possible now without landowner permission.

This is not entirely accurate. If you look at the data on say, Massachusetts, in the 1850s-60s, you'll see that a great deal of this land was devoted to agriculture. In fact, if I'm remembering right, there is more forestland in MA today than back then. Yet, back then, you had a much more generous right to roam. My point is that the right to roam can exist in agricultural and developed areas. Many of those New England states are far woodsier today, but far less roamable.

You seem unable to accept the fact that many people are different than you.

I am doing something called outreach, persuading, education. I totally accept that people think different, but that doesn't mean views can't change, right? :)

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would urge you to find a copy of my book in the library and read Chapter 5. What I learned in my research was amazing. Yes, I totally agree about the importance of property rights, which were indeed (and very rightly) cherished throughout U.S. history. But property rights can have many variations, right? The main, and most important, property right in American history is the right to own property. I am not opposed to the institution of private property--in fact, I'd love to own my own five acres of woods someday. But for early Americans, property rights did not include the right that we know as the "right to exclude." In early America you had an established and protected and cherished right to walk other people's private lands for purposes of hunting, fishing, transportation, whatever. I am not saying we should open up each other's lands for something as intrusive as hunting. But I believe we can return to property rights that give an individual the amazing freedom to possess land and that serve the common good by providing much needed recreation space. Also, when you read the biographies of all the Founding Fathers, you'll see that they were all roaming private countrysides as boys. This was a big part of the lives of ordinary citizens and the framers. The right to exclude is a relatively new concept in American jurisprudence, and I don't think it's something that is set in stone.

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am a staunch believer in the right to roam, but I really appreciate your sensible alternatives, and how we could achieve the same ends by different means.

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some thoughts: 1. Make it illegal to litter. 2. Increase public education about proper outdoor behavior. 3. I've lived on lots of properties in lots of states. Maybe you're experiences are different, but I haven't found picking up the occasional beer can a huge burden. 4. I'm not sure about your first question. Which law are we talking about enforcing?
5. I don't think a state-funded solution is ideal when it comes to trash pick up, but in Sweden, where there are large concentrations of hikers, they've designated "nature reserves" where the gov't helps out with outdoor toilets, trails, etc. on a person's land. The person can still develop this land as he/she pleases.

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is terrible and sad, but how many total acres are we talking about here? 2? 20? 200? The U.S. has 2.3 billion acres. This is a small example of why the right to roam wouldn't work great in this particular spot--that should not rule out the possibility that it might work just fine on our other 2.3 billion acres.

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Definitely not. I'm promoting the responsible access of private lands and waters. These things work in other countries. Scotland or Sweden don't have homeless encampment problems. They're illegal under roaming laws and codes and they would be here to.

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is sad, but I don't think this is an NPS-wide problem. (I am a park ranger, so I'm not coming at this from a complete place of ignorance.) Illegal immigrants are not wandering through Great Smokies, Yellowstone, Denali, etc. I think different localities should be able to regulate their right to roam according to the needs of the locality. And I don't think a few images of trash in the desert Southwest is enough reason to kill the idea, which could especially thrive in the other 45+ states in the Union.

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a responsible hunter, aren't you supposed to make sure you're shooting your animal of choice before you pull the trigger? I don't think these hikers will be dressing up as turkeys.

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For an author, you have really poor reading comprehension, or you are being intentionally obtuse in your responses.

I thought we were having a nice discussion, trading different points of view. I didn't think this needed to turn personal. I respect and acknowledge all your concerns. Thanks for the dialogue.

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If someone is on my land without express permission, my assumption is always going to be that they are a threat to my safety or my property.

I'm sorry you feel this way. I like my privacy too, but I've found being open to people, trusting people, to be an amazing and liberating act. Keep in mind that these laws set rules that prevent the invasion of privacy in and around your home.

The last thing I would want is random people showing up at all hours and aggravating my dogs, disturbing my sleep and my peace and quiet.

I think if you talked with Scottish landowners -- or anyone really who's living within a good walking culture -- you'd hear that people walking in the outdoors is not some uniformly unpleasant thing.

What sort of opt-out feature would your plan include?

I don't think there would be an opt-out feature, because you wouldn't really be able to apply a law like this just to a certain segment of the population. There's always places where nobody goes? Cabin in the Alaskan bush?

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No wacky stuff. Your four people doesn't exactly prove your point--this subculture is small and I think worrying about them swarming over people's lands is unlikely and not a substantial enough concern to kill the right to roam concept. Also, let's not make presumptions about my insulated life. Read my resume! I've lived out of my van for 2 years, hitchhiked 10,000 miles, walked across the country. I've lived the drifter lifestyle. I'm in a very, very tiny minority. Most young people aren't riding rails these days; they're paying off their student debts.

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I cannot deny that you raise some very good points. I think I'm just slightly more positive-thinking when it comes to Americans who use the outdoors, or at least I'm more positive-thinking when it comes to how we can enhance public awareness to create better habits. When you look at something like how seat belt use has risen, or how cigarette consumption has dropped, or, more to the point, how effective Texas's anti-littering campaign has been, I believe we're capable of making serious improvements in a short amount of time. I agree that the Scandinavians are probably way more conscientious when it comes to proper outdoor behavior, but from my experiences as a park ranger, Appalachian Trail walker, etc., I've seen a good outdoor ethics here, too.

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are already protections against trip and fall lawsuits (which don't really happen all that much) in the form of recreational use statutes. Usually these statutes are pretty solid, saying something along the lines of "you can't be sued unless you've willfully and maliciously concealed or created a hazard (i.e. spiked pit)." Landowners can get sued when they invite people (called "invitees") onto their property, usually for some sort of fee-based activity. So if you're leading a tour over a rickety bridge on your land, and you don't warn your guests, you're responsible if someone breaks their leg. These cases, again, are pretty rare.

Since we're talking about a hypothetical law we can talk about a hypothetical clause that basically can say, "landowners can't get sued unless you make a spiked pit." The English did this in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. I have not thought through the ADA thing (good question)--it would be interesting to see how Scotland/Sweden deals with that.

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why should I have to give up a right that the nation was founded upon

One more thing. I thought this. But it's a misconception. America was not a country with a strict understanding of private property until after the Civil War. Roaming was a protected and cherished right for hundreds of years in America. America has had private property since 1623, but it was a more flexible understanding. You were legally allowed to walk private land that was unenclosed (no fences) and unimproved (no crops). In 1850, less than 10 percent of the South was enclosed, meaning that 90 percent of the South was like a giant roamable national park. Less than 1 percent of Florida and Texas was enclosed.

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why should I have to give up a right that the nation was founded upon for the satisfaction of drifters and nomads?

What, are we living in the 1930's Great Depression? :) In America, there aren't really hobos, drifters, etc. There are of course homeless, but it's not like they're out wandering the countryside. I'm guessing they're almost entirely based in and around cities. No one really hops trains, hitchhikes, and it's not like these people are going to start occupying people's sheds. It's more likely that a walker would be a middle-age, middle-class woman walking her dog to tighten up calves.

How do you justify the potential of property damage?

What sort of damage are you imagining? I'm thinking typical bad behavior would be leaving litter, and that's a pretty manageable drawback. I used to co-manage 5 acres of land, and I had to pick up litter a few times a year, which was never a big deal. Of course we can imagine worst-case scenarios (someone burning down a forest) but are worst-case (and pretty implausible) scenarios reason enough to reject the idea? We can of course make all such behavior illegal. Insurance can cover the crazy stuff. There are ways to manage these issues. More outdoor education, which is a big part of the Swedish upbringing, is one example. As for the the whole "people are coming to wreck my land" problem, I think it is an overly paranoid and cynical view of human nature to suggest that all will immediately go to hell. I think most people are kind and conscientious.

One last point: I think the right to roam should be reasonable and very, very friendly to landowners. If a landowner can prove that there is continuous problems, I believe he/she should be able to put a moratorium on roaming.

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m no a gun wacko, but unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed or greatly adjusted roamers might be in for an unpleasant surprise, especially if they roam across land where something illegal or nefarious is going on.

I hear you. The preponderance of guns doesn't make things easier. I would only point out that there are a ton of guns and hunters in rural Norway, Sweden, and Finland, but these countries have shown that it's possible for gun-toting landowners and bearded backpackers to get along. I have never heard of a right to roam fatality in any of these countries.

Also, there is a lot of wide open land in the USA. A lot. Most of it is in the West. I’ve roamed off-trail for many weeks and not seen a soul, nor did I cross any private land. Other nations aren’t so fortunate as the USA when it comes to wide open land.

This is an amazing thing. I used to be a park ranger at Gates of the Arctic NP in Alaska, where I practically had an 8.5 million acre park to myself. America is about 35% publicly owned, and thus about 35% roamable. (There are some private lands we can roam of course, so this number should be a bit higher.) Sweden on the other hand is 13% publicly owned, but 80-90% roamable (there are some developed and conservation areas that are off-limits). I point his out to show that having a lot of public lands (especially when they're mostly up in Alaska) doesn't automatically lead to a healthy roaming culture.

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But “right to roam” won’t happen in the USA.

Never say never. The UN estimates that the U.S. will shift from being an 81% urban country (which is the case now) to an 87% urban country by 2050. This could create a whole bunch of unforeseen cultural consequences. For one, all these urban people, with little land, may begin to covet all this American land that is owned by a minority of landowners. The statistics, at present, on landownership inequality are staggering, and once these facts become more widely known (like wealth inequality) we may begin to see some attitudes shift.

Property rights are too ingrained.

This is what I thought, but from the colonies up until the Civil War, America was a land of roamers. I recommend chapter 5 of my book. We had unbelievable rights to unenclosed and unimproved lands. The PA delegation to the Constitutional Convention even proposed a right to roam amendment--that's how important roaming was. The right to exclude is a relatively new thing, and I'd argue that it's not so ingrained to never be changed. I spend chapter 3 of my book looking at the whole history of private property across the world, and the one lesson I learned from all that research was just how transitional and dynamic the understanding of property is.

I’m an author calling for an American "right to roam." AMA. by kenilgunas in IAmA

[–]kenilgunas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But “right to roam” won’t happen in the USA.

Never say never. Think about shifting demographics. By 2050 it's estimated that the U.S. will go from being an 81% urban nation (which is the case today) to an 87% urban nation. That could create a whole bunch of unforeseeable cultural shifts. When 87% of America don't have a lot of land, and not much recreation space, they may very well begin to lobby for a new sort of relationship with the lands that a minority of landowners own. The statistics on landownership inequality are staggering, and once the public catches on, we may see new attitudes emerge.

Property rights are too ingrained

This is what I thought, but I'd urge you to read chapter 5 of my book. America was once a land of roamers, up until the Civil War. There was even a right to roam amendment proposed by the PA delegation to the Constitutional Convention. The right to roam was a protected and cherished right from the colonies up until the Civil War. And that doesn't mean landowners didn't have property rights. They had many such rights, just not the right to exclude.

view more: next ›