America is known as the 'Land of the Free', yet Americans don't have the freedom to explore the land? In majority of the USA, that's correct. The Right to Roam (AKA the Freedom to Roam) is a custom in Europe that allows anyone to wander in open countryside, whether the land is privately or publicly owned. So where do property rights end and human rights begin in the European Union versus the United States? Let's take a look.
Episode 118 | #germany #usa #economics #law #legal #property #propertyrights #landuse #planning #zoning #urbanplanning #europe #norway #sweden #germany #legalsystem #expatlife #movingabroad #americaningermany #america #livingabroad #americansreact #eurozone | Filmed August 24th, 2023
Jump to Your Favorite Topic 🙌 :
0:00 Intro
02:30 What is the Right to Roam?
09:25 "The Devil's Rope" & American Property Rights
13:16 American Freedom Not To Roam\
20:36 Do Good Fences make Good Neighbors?
🎥 More Videos to Check Out:
German Neighborhoods are ILLEGAL IN AMERICA | Zoning & NIMBY-ism • German Neighborhoods a...
Right to Roam and to Forage | BlackBeltBarrister by @BlackBeltBarrister • Right to Roam and to F...
How Property Law Is Used to Appropriate Black Land by @VICENews • How Property Law Is Us...
📝 Sources Cited in the Video:
Sweden on Airbnb by @VisitSwedenOfficial • Sweden on Airbnb
US Court Case on Firing a Warning Shot in Montana
Kaestner v. Masten, 2012 MT 286N, ¶¶ 25-28, 368 Mont. 413 (2012).
Using Force To Defend Property: Legal Or Not? by Wilton H. Strickland
mylegalwriting.com/2022/01/01...
Some of the links above may be affiliate links. At no cost to you, The Black Forest Family may earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase.
🌲 Want more fresh from the Black Forest content? Connect with us!
Instagram: instagram.com/blackforest...
Facebook: / blackforestfamily
Visit our Website: blackforestfamily.com
Subscribe to our Newsletter for the latest info: www.blackforestfamily.com/fol...
Planning a trip to the Black Forest? Check out our guide here: www.blackforestfamily.com/tra...
Ready to make the move to Germany? We wrote a comprehensive step-by-step guide: www.blackforestfamily.com/mov...
Hi Everyone! We hope you enjoy this Sunday's video about a topic that we had a LOT of fun "exploring" (*is it too early for a Dad joke?). 😂 In all seriousness though - we actually have a pretty huge announcement coming to our channel this Wednesday regarding the "future" of our presence on KZhead. As much as I hate "baiting", I want to encourage everyone to be on the lookout for a short video explanation this Wednesday since it isn't part of our normal schedule and we would greatly appreciate your feedback and support. ❤ - Ashton
👶?
never to early for any joke, will have a look, hope you stay here on youtube too...sunday breakfast without the four of you isn't as good as with you
@@SirHeinzbondFor me too
You cannot compare Scandinavian country’s to the likes of the USA and UK. The Scandinavians are civilised.
@@Matt-vo1ge no you can not compare the usa to something other than usa , maybe canada, but not to all extent... but Ashton is doing this on regular base... and we see the differences between Germany( greater extension to Europe) and the USA... and it would be nice that the nice people in USA start to rethinking some of their ways, and also should we do a bit... but not in the right of way, not the freedom at all, the gun control, the health insurances, the taxes, the (insert what's important to you!)
I am a swedish forest owner and I create paths for the public in my forest, to show the most beautiful areas in it, because I am proud of it.
I wish all land owners would do that - especially if they have something significant like a neolithic monument or forest or beach.
Oh good then we will send you a couple thousand of our illegals to your land
skol from this small forest owner in Oregon USA, no fence or signs here, in the last 10 years I've only had to clean up one beer can... in 2019 😂. It's a beautiful world, thanks for sharing.
Thats so beautiful and awesome. 🥰
Thank you for your public service!
As a Norwegian, I find it ironic that in the "Land of the Free" they restrict people's movements so much, whereas here in "socialist" Norway everyone has the freedom to roam in nature.
Second that, but i'm not from Norway :) Home of the brave, land of the free; but nobody's free to go where he wants... Also, the "good fences make good neighbours"... that's so dumb, good fences only separate people, not bring them together. I rather share my garden with my neighbours so we can all enjoy one big garden in the summer, as to each having his own 15m² and barely know each other and make a fuss when a kid shoots a ball into a neighbouring garden. Good rules make good neighbours, not the fences. My frontyard is a nice big public park in the city and I love to share it with everyone from the neighbourhood and beyond, i don't need a backyard for myself..
Strong rights to private property goes above everything else in the land of the free 🤷
tbf norway is mega liberal in camping and stuff
Let people roam on private land? THAT WOULD BE SOCIALISM!
@@FINNSTIGAT0R"land of the free" 😂😂😂
As a European I went to Wyoming to view the 2017 Solar eclipse, a bit North of Lingle. We arrived at a beautiful spot, and there the landowner was standing making sure that all eclipse chasers remained on the state land and did not trespass on her private land.
what a waste of time, i'm suprised this owner was not charging fees.... ech
I also was just north of Lingle, and found a property owner charging $50 per car to park on their field. It would have been possible to park on the side of the road, but it seemed safer, plus the owner had brought in portable bathrooms
oh, and also, the eclipse passed right over the Crescent Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Nebraska (wonderful public land), which was my original plan, but that area had a higher chance of clouds
@@alquinn8576 It was also the intention that we would view the eclipse from Nebraska, but the weather forecast made us change our plans on the morning of the eclipse and head further West to Wyoming.
@@alquinn8576 He must have become rich that day....
This video made me realize I, as a Polish person, never worried about trespassing. Ever. I can't fathom how trespassing in a forest is even possible. Also, how can a country not have "if its not forbidden - it's allowed" as a rule is beyond me
Because 'if it's not specifically allowed, it's forbidden' creates more profit for the police and corrections industry.
It’s not. This video is so blatantly false, for example, only 8% of the land in the UK and 11% of the land in Norway have public “rights to roam”, compare that to Americas 35% with a near record along of large national parks. We can go anywhere, given someone doesn’t own it.
Where do you get 11% from for Norway? The vast majority land area of Norway is not fenced and +150m away from a residence as such the right to roam applies to almost the entire country. btw. England was a negative example in this video so not sure why you bring up the UK.
I had such a situation in Poland (as a Pole), where someone occupied the road as passing through land belonging to him and not only did not allow passage, but threatened to "chase me with an axe" (Poland, so not a firearm). I walked around it in the woods at the time, but after walking around I met neighbours who saw me talking to the man. They said that the troublemaking family and was annoying them (they had cut the only road through the village with this blockade), but there was nothing they could do.
PS. Of course -- the only one situation I know in Poland, where the owner was aggressive. I also know of a case where a tourist path was cut through and prevented from exploring one of the valleys near Krakow. But while I can name such cases from my own hikes, the fact is that they are few and far between and it is generally possible to hike freely.
I’m a Native American, not just an American. Our traditional beliefs are that no one can actually own the land. The house you build is yours, but the land belongs to no one. If you plant crops, those are yours and I won’t disturb them. If I plant crops in the land that the law says are yours, those are mine, but you can have them too. We place a greater value on respecting the individual, not the law. Our traditional views didn’t take into account the commercialization of agriculture, because it is an alien concept.
♥️♥️♥️
This can work only with a very thin density of population, which is not the case anymore, nowhere in whole world. Actually everywhere the "tragedy of commons" is taking place, which leads inevitably to the destruction to our world, as long as there are no legal limitations.
@@n.mariner5610 Chicago and Finland have about the same population. Manchuria in China has about 20 million people and Outer Manchuria in Russia has a little over 1 million. California has more people than the ten least-populated states combined. Russia has roughly the same population as the UK & Germany combined, spread over 11 time zones. There is plenty of open space to support triple the world's population.
@@almitrahopkins1873 Yes there are still areas not being exploited, e.g. Antarctica, but only because there are no resources there and it is extremely difficult to reach. Man always has exploited to the max all available resources which are not protected by law. It is not only land, but also the sea, the vast oceans suffer greatly through overfishing, and maybe the biggest problem of our time is the spoiling of our atmosphere by polluting with CO2. This all is called the tragedy of commons, and the only solution to prevent this is legal protection.
@@n.mariner5610 man has not always exploited land to the maximum extent, to the point where it detriments even him. Native Americans were living sustainably and stewarding the land before colonizers showed up to ruin it for everyone. They used to do control burns to rejuvenate the land for future generations. To this fucking day we can’t even manage that
As someone born in the U.S., it's absolutely terrifying every time I find out another right that people in other countries have, that I was never even told was a right. The more I think about it, the more I think "Land of the Free" is sarcasm.
It is propaganda
@@iwillroamIt is for the 90% of the US citizens "made to believe" they have the best country, so the richest 10% can scam the 90% without any worries. Also this Democrats vs conservatives is for the 90%, while the rich 10% watching from above eating their popcorn and laughing.
Probably the same for ''home of the brave''
@@trashcatlinol and for the God part
As George Carlin said: "It's Called the American Dream Because You Have To Be Asleep to Believe It."
One thing I didn't hear in this video was insurance liability. When I was a kid in upstate NY, No Trespassing signs were few and far between. Now days they are everywhere. Too many land owners have been sued by someone that may have been injured on their property.
That's insane. With right to roam comes the responsibility for yourself, nature and other people (so you don't bother them by going close to housing etc.).
Because the US fcked this up at the start. I sprain my ankle on a hike i do the following. I call my boss to tell him i‘m not coming for two weeks and i go see a doctor. Doesn’t cost me a cent. Most americans first thought is how much money they will lose with this and they need someone to compensate for those losses.
@@tinoj9661 Yeah, because *personal property rights* are such a horrid thing! In the US - honest you sprains your ankle, you walk it off (you made it home right?), skip the doctor, ice it down and get your hiney to work the next day - because you're a rugged hiking kind of person; bad sprain - borrow your buddy's crutches. Unless of course you were emergency air-lifted out of your hiking area - but you might want a bone protruding or at least broken (medical insurance probably covers that - 'sick days' can be used for time off - ergo no lost $$). Otherwise you might call your boss, tell him your not coming in for two weeks because of a sprain? He'd probably tell you to take the next month off and while off get your resume updated (cv?); dishonest you - sprains your ankle - looks around wondering how much money you can get from the land owner if they were sued because you were a stumble-bum and sprained your own ankle or you're a pretty good actor ..... before you remember you're on Federal or State lands and can't sue them - so go back to start - you walk it off.
That's of course everyones responsibilty. Except trees falling on public roads f.e.
Every now and then I‘m in utter shok that there is no public and universal health insurance in the us.
As someone who lives in Utah in the US; I can confirm how HARD it is to find good backwood trails. My grandpa tells me stories about so many amazing hikes he took to the top of canyons local to my hometown, and today 80% of this canyon land is owned by a local copper mine company, and they defend their land with active armed guards and local police and search&rescue teams. So in short, I live in a state full of beautiful outdoors and gorgeous mountainsides, as it’s slowly being destroyed and blocked from access by the public.
Gee, it's almost like a person could die or be seriously injured in a canyon or mine. A business needs to obligate the lowest common denominator when it comes to safety. And that LCD is incredibly low as of late.
You have to divide that by the amount of local methheads that died there from sheer negligence. And also the fact that local police and "search&rescue teams" guard your house. And also that there are lots of empty canyons you could buy yourself and open to the public.
@@gang-ridertv5433 the police don't "guard my house." I have to guard my house. The Police show up after the fact, take note of what was stolen and probably never find it or who stole it. And if they do find it, it probably ends up eventually getting auctioned off to further fund the police.
So, if you can't roam because of guards, become one of them and walk freely 🤭
I grew up in New York and my family regularly trespassed on private forest even climbing fences. When telling friends, they were often shocked and considered it worse than doing drugs to go on someone else’s land. After seeing your show, I realize my family must have learned this from my grandmother who grew up in the Black Forest.
😂👍
Yay, someone with German Ancestors!
My German ancestors were peasants who wanted their own land. The Palatine Germany’s came for land. The Native Americans did roam but were upset by settlers animals trampling their crops. Free roaming didn’t work with domestic livestock. But settler’s land use was very different from native land use. Modern Big agriculture is radically different. We haven’t changed attitudes though. American individualism doesn’t seem to consider others.
You just had to be careful. In Central New York there were farmers who shoot rock salt at us if we were cought taking a short cut through thier property.
They think they have a right to own a beach.... that's apalling.
When I first learned that in the USA people don't walk into fields or forests or other such open spaces for fear that they might get killed by the owner I was completely shocked because it simply never occured to me that such a thing would happen in the 21st century. It just sounds so....feudal.
In Canada it's often the other way around. Landowners fence their property and put up "no trespassing" signs to deter hunters who might mistake them for deer and shoot them.
@@wizardsuth As someone who grew up in rural American we mostly do that for the same reason, The only rural area you generally have to worry about being shot randomly by the "owners" is drug cartel land, "non-public" government land, and meth dens.
@@flyingmonkeydeathsquadronc968with me being Norweigan, that mindset should probably be communicated more across the world. Cause i might have gotten myself shot if i ever travelled to the US before learning this not long ago
You're generally not going to get shot, unless you stumble upon an illegal operation of some sort (drug or otherwise). But that can happen on public land as well as on private land. The real reason is the US legal system. You are legally responsible for anyone on your property. If they get hurt you will get sued. It doesn't matter how the injury happened. Fencing, posting no-trespassing signs, and generally denying access without permission is the only legal defense.
@@onehorsetoomany8006But don't U.S also have that castle law where you can legally kill someone if they get to your property? Seems perfect way for a killer to get away with murder. Or doesn't the castle thing cover the owned land?
The key part of all this is "respectful". Many people, not just in the US, have made the choices to not respect other people.
This is why I would say this won't work well in the US. People really don't respect each other and arguably don't respect themselves. Maybe that is why this is needed, however. Maybe regularly interacting with moderately removed neighbors could imbed respect for property into the culture again. I learned it in youth groups, but not everyone was part of those. Who would have taught them? No one.
Comes down to up bringing. There are more disrespectful, entitled and DGAF people from America due to decades of poor upbringing. American culture and values have changed for the worse. Just watch ANY 1960's family show to understand the values, culture and standard of living America once had.
My home state of Oregon designated its entire coastline as a "public highway" so property rights could not infringe on the public's enjoyment of its beaches. I was surprised to learn not all coastal states allowed public access to all their beaches.
Now if they could just kick all the anti-constitutional nonsense out and delete the cartels with the fury of 1776.
@@manictiger Unfortunately, not enough Republicans are interested in opposing the anti-constitutional, authoritarian impulses of Trump to do that.
I live on the Oregon coast and your allowed to be on any stretch of beach anytime you want, you're just not allowed to sleep on it or it's a 1000 dollar ticket for illegal camping on the beach. So no, that's not really freedom unless you don't sleep. And this is exactly what the Oregon coast towns do every summer to the Oregon coast trail through hikers who opt for camping on the beach instead of shelling out 400 dollars a night for a hotel room. Which is essentially illegal for them to do being that it's designated public land, but they do it anyway because there's really no such thing as real freedom in this country, only a brainwashed illusion of it that we've been spoon fed since birth. Cheers.
@@jamierobinson3349 Well, like Ashton said, there are places in Europe where freedom to roam doesn't mean freedom to camp. The Oregon coastal towns no doubt don't want the beaches, tourism to which supports their economies, to turn into filthy permanent encampments like Portland has. Oregon declared the coastline a public highway, and I can't think of any other public highway you can camp overnight on.
@@timelston4260 lol, they don't fine the homeless for camping on the beach, only those who they know can pay the ticket like OCT backpackers and people who aren't homeless. So no, you are incorrect. And Portland became a 💩hole because the genius state government decided it was a good idea to decriminalize all drugs inviting every homeless drug addict in America to move here. That's the facts and that's the reason. I've been to Europe more than once and was blown away by how much more freedoms they enjoy than we do. Cheers. (and only 30% of the Oregon coast trail is on the "Hwy")
When I sold a mountaibike to an American here in Bavaria, he gazed me in disbelieve, when I told him, he could go anywhere he just wanted to go to. No complaining and no shooting. For me something not even worth considering, for him a big surprise. Small country, but big freedom here, thank you for reminding me of this. Excellent, passionate contribution!
Hehe... Ich habe die gleiche Erfahrung mit meiner "Sister from another Mister" gemacht. Sie ist Amerikanerin und als ich mit ihr Wandern/Mountain biking/ Joggen war, war sie immer ganz irritiert, gar verängstigt zu Beginn, dass ein Durchqueren von (...) überhaupt kein Problem darstellt... Oder man sogar nette Gespräche gefunden hat.
But in Germany you do not have the right to roam - land owners can restrict access because they are responsible for injuries that happen on their land.
@@Draxel ich denke es geht um nicht eingefriedete Gelände wie Felder Wiesen und Wälder
I'd look at you like you were an idiot, you can't ride your mountain bike anywhere you want in Bavaria, only on specific, legally allowed routes. Come to my forest in Bavaria and I will prosecute you.
@@Draxel restricting is something else then shooting them just because they drive up te wrong the wrong driveway. If you pass on a restictive site they just tell you to go away.
16:24 I'm surprised by the "private beach" signs. Here in Spain the law guarantees that the sea and its surroundings as beaches must be open to the public, a law that in a way forbids private beaches. The selfishness of owning a beach looks crazy to me, like why forbid anyone to enter a part of nature, it's like I decide I own a river and no one can use it or visit it.
Same in France
Same in Portugal. Hotel chains tried to do that on Algarve and where forced to up the gates
Most US states the beach - the tidal area or the area up the high water mark - is public. But you aren't guaranteed a path from the road to the beach. In California, we have a law that protects access to beaches, as in, in must be allowed, but it takes constant work to sue landowners who put up gates and block public easements.
Same in Croatia
I love that law. When I first came to Spain and saw how many beaches that was open to the public despite close vicinities to hotels, I was amazed! Because in my country, Malaysia, a lot of beaches has sadly been taken up by private owners (which are mostly hotels) that only made available if you pay the (stay at the hotel e.g.). It is definitely sad especially in the west coast side because we are definitely blessed with superbly beautiful tropical beaches that should be everybody's right. Thank goodness on the east coast side, they have more open beaches for the public.
As an Englishman who loves to walk in the countryside, I was fascinated to watch this KZhead video. It does, however, give the impression that hiking and walking in England is pretty much limited to the 8% of land covered by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. What it doesn’t describe however is the enormous number of public footpaths and Bridleways across the whole country - they are everywhere! OK you are limited to where the footpath goes, but in a small country like England there are not many places you can’t get to on the public footpath network. In addition, the footpaths are generally maintained and are easier walking than just striding across rough untended land. I have only recently found your channel and I’m very impressed by the topics you cover and the open way you discuss them - keep up the good work.
Well said.
Yes, the real access concern is not England but Ireland. No footpaths or bridleways. Currently there's a lot of informal access, particularly to waterways (which England is especially poor on) but none of it is codified in law so access can disappear with a change of landowner or an incident. Add a US style approach to liability...
In Switzerland there are even a lot of public trails that go through privately owned land, often so close to a house that you could peek through the owner's windows ^^. The freedom you can get when decency is the norm is astonishing.
However wild camping is still mostly forbidden which, as a fellow swiss person, i find very frustrating
Creepy
As an European every time I’ve heard the phrase “private beach” I thought it meant that someone owned a private island. Never had it occurred to me that Americans don’t have access to regular beaches
I spain private sections of a beach exist because you can legally fence your backyard and the right to roam is not a law, so it is kind of a conflict here. People ina town near by recently rioted against the fencing of a mansion of the kazakh president (it is real) because it owned coastal area and a traditional path. They tore down the fence. Private beaches are starting to get outlawed even when the right to roam is not really tipified
It depends on the state. California owns all beach below the high tide line and holds it for public access
In Italy no one can own beaches. You can buy concessions though.
we do
I as an American did not actually know that "Right to Roam" actually existed anywhere. This is not something that was ever taught in school or even something that I picked up on as we visited Germany on exchange in '86 and '88. I have been a city dweller most of my life so it may never affect any land I have, but "respectfully" roaming farmland would make things easier in rural areas. Awesome topic and one to think about should the population start loving others equally instead of itself more.
As an American from the rural south west, it's usually okay to cross a farm field if you're careful but people are so insensitive, disrespectful, and non-observant that they tend to litter, stomp on and destroy plants and furrows and ditches and fences. Farming is hard enough without the neighborhood children ruining a few hundred dollars of crops every month. I am 100 percent for free roaming in America but I feel it would require a more educated, empathetic and respectful population that places more value on accountability.
It is illegal to cross farmfields in Europe too if crops has been planted there, same thing with fields of treeplants in the forest, but it is usualy ok to pass in the forest if one does not destroy anything or step on the treeplants. However, in Sweden it is fully legal to put up a tent for 24 Houers on non farmlands or forest plantages as long as it is 50 meters or more from the house where people are living (fishing, except for in the sea may requiering a licence here, but in the sea and some of the bigger lakes it is free, but ponds, creeks and smaller lakes are usualy not allowed to fish in without special premission from the landowner but it is free to swim in them, hunting does always require a special license, maybe except for things like rodents (but not birds, most birds are protected or requires a license, it also requires a special premission to carry guns in some places) if one really would like to hunt rodents... ).
Its basicly the same everywhere in europe. Stay away from peoples gardens and homes and build up earia's and don't harm any crops and stay away from lifestock (the last also more for your own safety to) but if its not fenced or fenced of with an "open" gate you can respectfully walk on it.
There's a LOT we Americans are not taught in schools, and a lot of this dearth of information stems from 'certain states' (*ahem* former Confederates) wanting to conceal the racist/white supremacist (no real difference between the terms) history that has lead to the current system. "Locking down the land" in the Great Plains may have been to 'protect crops from free-grazing cattle,' but elsewhere it was intended to provide an easy way to convict 'certain people' (blacks) of crimes such as trespass and loitering, invoking the 13th Amendment ("Slavery is prohibited ... EXCEPT AS PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME..") to re-enslave those who had been recently freed. And now that we have these literally soulless, artificial people, called Corporations, who have been granted MORE rights than Natural Persons (the latest example is the CItizens United ruling), we have these artificial THINGS claiming perpetual ownership of land, and slowly trying to extend that into perpetual ownership of the Natural Persons who work that land.
It's so stupid. There's so much undeveloped land in a lot of places, like 10+ acres of mountainous forest behind a house that's never going to be used by the owner, and no one else can use it either, because every single piece of land has to be owned by someone and there was never sufficient interest for the local government to buy a section of this particular parcel to turn into a park. Of course 9 times out of 10 you'd never run into any trouble if you did walk on it, but between the "Posted" signs (which were probably installed decades ago by a long-dead previous owner as over-zealous CYA) and stories you hear about someone knocking on the wrong door by mistake no one tries, and everyone accepts that the only way to access nature is by going to small designated places that are few and far between.
When I left the states I was so appalled folks were trying to get me to walk thru other people's properties and they gave me the most ghastly look. That was the 1st of MANY culture shocks.
I live in Australia, we have a lot of public land, beaches are not allowed to be restricted from public use, we have huge national parks, state forests & nature reserves and if you go to country areas I cannot imagine a farmer threatening someone for walking across their field unless they were disturbing animals or littering or something. It’s polite to ask permission for things but if you are just hiking I don’t think anyone would care. You’d probably get stopped for a chat though 😂
we have parks too
Yeah mate stay out of farmers fields. If nothing else it's a biosecurity hazard. You're walking in plant and fungal material and diseases on your shoes and tires that can ruin land for decades or forever. If you don't know the issues in the local area you should always ask.
This might be a bit extreme, but a couple of weeks after a really bad downpour, my grandpa visited our cabin in the woods (no roads, no civilization for an hour and a half, built entirely by my family, cabin in the woods), only to find a makeshift wooden doorstop and a massive rock in front of the door. The lock was broken, and the linen closet had obviously been raided as 2/3 of it was neatly folded and placed on the table in the main room right next to a bottle of homemade rakia which we assume was left in apology. Other than that, everything looked as we left it. The only indication that they used the beds was the pile of laundry they left us, the bed covers and decorative pillows were all replaced perfectly. It even looked like they tried to fix our broken waterline that's consistently getting vandalized by a local bear. My grandma was a bit upset with the intrusion, but other than that, we all just accepted that these people probably got caught in a bad situation and were desperate for shelter, and clearly did their best to be respect our space despite breaking in.
This is really wholesome!
@@hardstyle905 Bulgaria
Bottle of rakia... Bulgaria i guess? Anyways, incredibly wholesome, thank you for sharing!
I can't say I haven't been in a situation like that. I had to brake in to a cabin here in Alaska. Was up in the mountains when a blizzard swept through. There was no warning of it (this includes weather reports). I was lucky to have found it and a can of gas. I did leave my number and I even went back to check in on the place about two weeks later. I replaced the window I broke and later that same day I got a call from the family who later after finding out I replaced their window thanked me. later on we actually became. hunting Buddies.
This is honest to god good human nature. People helping people. Love to see it
Living for 10 months in Georgia (about 30 years ago) during my university time, I once wanted to go out to a walk in the woods, just like I was used to in Germany. So I picked my bicycle (even this made me a weirdo), rode it out of town, searching for the walking ways in the woods I expected to find. All I actually found were fences and "No trespassing" signs, leaving me really puzzled and disappointed. Thanks for clearing that up. For me, this definitely is another reason to live in Europe rather than in the US.
could be because of cold war and ussr if it was 30 years back :)
bruh, at first i thought you were talking about the country Georgia. Only at the very end i realised that you are talking about the state of Georgia. 😐
@@enemy1191 are you american? In my (european) language and most other languages, state = country. We have the the state/country divided into smaller bites regions. Bavaria in Germany for example. That would be the comparison to Georgia in the US.
@@klarapopilkova5791 I am also European and i also thought you meant the country and not one of the US states. (ig it was because of no specification) It made me confused also, because i don't think Georgia would have roaming relagulations (ignoring russia border problems at Caucaus).
@@klarapopilkova5791 No, im European, Latvian. In my European country and European language state isnt the same as country. Maybe it's because Germany is a Federation, there are only 13 in the world, USA is one of them, and Germany and Austria are the only ones in Europe (according of wiki and stuff). In Latvia we have municipalities, counties, regions, districts etc, BUT no states. Even if a country is made out of states, at the end it is a country, then states and then other variations of the regions.
Here in Czech Republic, there's a long-ongoing tradition of "mushroom hunting/picking". A lot of people go to the woods, to pick mushrooms, to then make Smaženice/Bramboračka/other dishes from them. Most of these woods are privately owned, yet no one bats an eye that people go there harvesting mushrooms. I couldn't imagine the access to these areas being forbidden. It's a fundamental right to me that I can literally go wherever I want in nature.
Freedom causes responsibility. If you have no freedom, then no one can hold you responsible for anything and if you have full freedom, you have no one else to blame. Children learn from an early age that they're free to play in the Nature, but that they are responsible. They use knives and axes and light fires. In Norway, children are also free to fish wherever they want without fee or permission, because we want to encourage them. When you are alone in the wilderness, perhaps even with potentially dangerous animals around, responsibility is as obvious as the sense of freedom. I think those happy memories help make us more responsible as adults as well, because the relationship between freedom and responsibility has been made so clear.
To me, a whole cultural mindset is needed to have this privilege. It’s about respecting the common good, what is good for society, nature. Same with the freedom of speech, and gun ownership. It comes with individual responsibility, to be mindful, of other people’s freedoms to be. More respect, less fear.
Bill, I agree with your thoughts, except for restrictions on "free speech". Free speech is is offensive speech; regardless of what one says, someone is offended. There is no such thing as "some" free speech, just as there is no such thing as a little bit pregnant. One is always free to ignore offensive speech or, counter it with better arguments. Libel and slander laws cover lies perpetrated about individuals. Nevertheless, the truth must always be a valid defence in such a case.
Absolutely. It should not need to be said, and it should not need to be wiped from people's consciousness so it is not said.
@@BasementEngineeri dont agree with you that free speech is offensive speech. And there is a difference between intentionally hurting someone or just having to say the truth, knowing you might offend people. Saying the truth in the most polite way you can, and, in an impolite way, if thats the only way the other party will understand, is crucial for a healthy society
@@hetedeleambacht6608 Disagree! Would you call today's western societies healthy? I surely do not. What has contributed to bringing on the cesspool we find ourselves in now? In my opinion, and that of others, it is political correctness and the inability to call a spade a spade. Change needs to be implemented and that begins with free speech, regardless of who gets offended. As I wrote earlier, libel and slander are already illegal under the law. Telling the truth, no matter whom it offends, is necessary for a healthy society.
@@hetedeleambacht6608 Perhaps, but the US supreme court ruled that hate speech doesn't exist, or at least can't be a crime. I think Matal v. Tam in 2017 is the most recent case where they said it's only a crime if you incite people to violence or other crimes.
You forgot a huge issue in the States. ( or i might have missed it), If someone gets hurt on your property in America, they can sue you for everything you have and everything you make in a lifetime and more. AND You might lose your property defending yourself legally even if you win the case.
Yes, that’s exactly the problem we have here in Ireland. I commented on it, in reply to someone else and they doubted it. Now I can’t find it to respond to them, but this is exactly the issue. The occupiers liability act enshrined the landowners responsibility for the safety of everyone accessing the land, for whatever purpose. That included burglary, up to very recently.
@@duncancremin1708 In here - while this would be cases in absolutely any “public spaces”… there it is absolutely the same as what You describe. … if You step on private property (not a public space!) without permission, the risk is ABSOLUTELY on you, even if You die. You are not chased away, due to customary rights to roam - still You stepped there on your own - so YOU (that is before the law and practically) need to weight the risks yourself. For example if You went into my forest in the storm - you are absolutely in rights to do so, but you would almost surely die… and I have nothing to do with that. It would be absolutely different if You would be my employee and I would send You there (You would sue me very the same way like what you described in your country)…. roaming is something where You didn’t ask for my permission … so I didn’t give You guidance - we are neutral to each other as long as You don’t cross the line of damaging my property (it’s like if You would step into wilderness without owner - with predators and dangers - it’s completely your game. It is treated generally as a “wilderness” when you “roam” … you are just replicating millennia of tradition of crossing wilderness here to get somewhere (you wouldn’t be able to find who’s forest it is in that distant past while crossing it, you just needed to cross it - and not cause a damage… and it’s up to You protect yourself from wolves, bears and falling trees … and so is the situation inherited up to this day {even though today you hypothetically could find who the owner is… but why?})
Liability like that does exist in Germany, for example if someone slips on your part of the sidewalk because you didn't clear the snow you may be on the hook. However, the restitution sums in the German legal system tend to be a lot smaller than in the US and on top of that almost everyone has private liability insurance (Privathaftpflichtversicherung) which would cover this case. And of course, it's "within reason" if you own a forest and someone trips on a stick I don't think they'd have a case ;)
As much as I understand the motivation behind not wanting strangers to pass through your property to avoid legal trouble in the event of an accident, I don't understand how this can coincide with the right to be able to shoot them as soon as they dare set foot in your woods. Under American law I can sue you if I trip over a root in your woods, but is it all okay if you make me eat a lead-based dietary supplement without passing it through my mouth?
the main problem is the fact they leave litter behind or damage property, but get offended if they are called out. The problem is entitlement.
I went on a bike ride through Eastern Oregon a couple years ago. Though the route was marked as county or Bureau of Land Management, we were met by armed ranchers in trucks and ATVs claiming we were trespassing. This is very disconcerting for someone legally taking a camping trip with their teenage son. Furthermore, look at any suburban city and you will find the majority of the walkable park space is occupied by golfing clubs that only wealthy people can afford to join.
These madmen ate just looking for an excuse to shoot you.
I think one important detail you forgot to mention that is connected to all this is how easy it is to sue a property owner in the United States. I used to work as a utility vegetation management inspector, and I would walk onto countless private properties for my job. Most property owners-in California at least- don’t care much if people hike around their undeveloped land, but they have “no trespassing” signs up for fear that they might get sued by a trespasser who falls and hurts themselves. At a lake near where my family has a cabin, there is a privately owned strip of beach where people used to always launch their canoes and kayaks. Last summer the owner was there, actively stopping anyone from launching their boats or even walking there. Apparently someone had injured themselves walking on the rocks there, the owner had gotten sued, and his property insurance had risen as a result. After that he stopped allowing anyone to use that beach.
That is utterly bizarre.
The problem here is because health is not free and you have to get someone to pay. If you had universal health insurance, there would not be any reason to sue
Good fences do not make good neighbors, they make fearful, isolated, and selfish neighbors. Causality is the reverse: Good neighbors obviate the need for fences, whereas bad neighbors need fences to hide their bad character. People getting shot because they accidentally enter the wrong driveway - this is absolutely unthinkable in Europe.
this reminds me of how today I went to a pool in a neighbouring town, and outside of it people just left their bikes unlocked. I wish it would be that safe in my city (although it's really not bad here, never got mine stolen)
"People getting shot because they accidentally enter the wrong driveway" This almost never actually happens. On the rare occasion it does, the media plasters it all over and makes it seem like it's a daily occurrence. Generally, the people get shot because they argue and refuse to leave or are in "the wrong driveway" committing or attempting to commit a crime. This is often left out of the story in most media articles.
@@revjaybird2 ...But it does happen. And the news only covers when people die. Not all the other times people are shot, shot at, or threatened illegally.
@@CrissaKentavr Lots of things happen occasionally on a planet of 8 billion people. You seem to think that this is some sort of regular occurrence, and that's simply not true. As well, if you're going to be terrified of someone simply telling to leave their well marked private property, then don't come here to the US.... you are obviously far too fragile to safely be here. The subway in any city will eat you alive if you are *that* timid. If you're actually worried about being shot, then no major city in the US is safe for you right now. You're far more likely to get shot by someone in an urban setting that wants your neat-o personal possessions than in rural areas over trespassing. Don't go to Chicago on any given weekend in the summer. That's where the most people are most often "shot, shot at, or threatened illegally".
@@revjaybird2 You wingnuts are getting lazier, barely one example & often don't even bother as you insist ableist this jew that greed is good narcissism is good.. If it's the US, there's always the chance a wingnut will be triggered to go on a killing spree. Very often they call communal sanctioned thugs w/ a gun to bully on their behalf. Red states are fucking horrible, conservative is a pretty word for highway bandit.
As an American, I couldn't tell you exactly when this idea of scarcity became so widespread and considered normal, but the concept can be seen everywhere in our culture. The idea that land is owned by someone, that unsaid shame of foraging, this idea that we need to limit our access to anything free.
Many of the methods and justifications 4 removing a native Americans hinged on the ability to absolutely control and restrict access to the land
@@amandak.4246 And yet there are, and have been historically, many functioning societies where land ownership didn't include the right to put up "No trespassing" signs every 20 feet and exclude everyone else from any use of your land whatsoever. Most indigenous societies, in fact, lacked a concept of individual land ownership. Land belonged to the tribe, and may have been divided into section that were, say, the hunting grounds of this or that family... but there was no concept of "This land belongs to Bob, and nobody else can go there without his permission." That's actually how it worked for most of the 300,000 years that modern humans have existed.
I'm an American who has had an interest in foraging and finding fossils. I like collecting bones and things but it feels taboo to start exploring around. Even worse that I'm in the Midwest and half the people here are just itching for an excuse to shoot somebody.
@amandak.4246 You mean CAPITALIST society. There are enough societies that worked very well without the concept of private ownership of land and looking at the crisis of affordable housing, I am not sure if even for capitalist societies it is rather the opposite: Society doesn't work without TIGHT LIMITATION of private land ownership.
I had never seen a "No trespassing" sign before I visited the US. i have been to several other countries that are great, and one is free to roam. @@amandak.4246
as an american the idea that you can just _walk_ is bewildering like the no trespass signs imply *you’re gonna get blasted*
Guess I'm one of those lucky Americans that has always been able to roam wherever I wanted, whenever I wanted. Though having recently been in Sacramento, that was not the case and it really isn't in the small town I live in now. In fact, I would say that No Trespass is worse here because it's a rural community and farmers will vehemently protect their land with deadly force, regardless of the legal consequences to them. That said, if you kindly approach them and ask permission to cross their land to simply get from point A to point B on foot or horse, most will oblige.
America is such a shithole you have to worry about getting shot if you walk into an open field like some warring nation.
The juxtaposition between Europe and the US is beautifully illustrated in this video. To contribute my own experience, I've walked all over Italy with very few restrictions. The restrictions there were primarily included warnings of natural dangers, disrespected and regrowing land from tourists, and personal dislocation in order to respect land that was too trodden by tourists. I tried to go rock hounding in Colorado recently. I've driven over 20 hours around and around, to find mostly gated access, "WE SHOOT ON SIGHT" signs, and barbed wire as far as the eye can see. The only accessible areas were wildness, in which many laws exists wherein you cannot "pillage" the area. I'm a proponent of "Leave No Trace," but the limitations within "the freest country in the world" is a wild claim, especially considering one could easily add topics to this same line of inquiry. 👀
This is something I noticed first when watching some British history youtubers, in some places they said "Oh yeah, there's right to roam here, so we can just cross this field.", which absolutely blew me away.
"Oh yeah we dont have property rights so well just violate this farmers hard work and privacy"
@@mondaysinsanity8193 the farmer has a legal obligation to keep footpaths clear
@@mondaysinsanity8193 Clearly, you have no idea about how the world works Obviously if you destroy something while crossing the land, you have to compensate the owner of that land
@@starhalv2427 lol you say that and say i dont know how the world works. How how does this happen. The land owner doesnt have park rangers or time to watch everyone who comes through. If theres plenty traffic they couldnt if they tried. Simple cameras wint work because tresspassing alone isnt enough. They have to actually see the action take place. In our state parks we have rangers we have cameras and yet...still need people who pick up litter and fix vandalism. Just because something is illegal doesnt stop it from happening you need a way to enforce it
@@salerio61 oh thats even worse no everyone has a right to the farners labor? Creating and maintaining trails takes work often quite a bit of work in fact. But the farmer has to do all that work for free...and you have a right to the fruit of thst labor....uh huh You know what that is...right?
I remember walking in Scotland with an American and she was very worried that we were “on the path” when I was trying to find the mountaineering line. It took a week for her to accept that we could actually go where we wanted to in the hills.
Maybe she was a 'pusher' herself.
I grew up in rural rural New Mexico in US, and i barely had any concept of private property. As a child, I roamed wheteever my heart desired. I was so shocked that i was in the small small minority of people in US, and going back to my home village 20 years later, that mindset is starting to take root even there!
This is the same story in Germany! As a child I was very free, but now, being 56 years old I see many Changes in the mindset of people. Many changes are also due to " safety"reasons
I’ve always noticed that during long road trips in America there will just be miles and miles of untouched land with fences around it. There’s not even anything on it, it’s just fenced off for as long as the eye can see.
I live in Switzeland and love the fact that the farmers smile and greet you pleasantly if you are crossing their land. But walkers respect the land, close gates or electric fences behind them, don't leave litter, don't trample crops and don't disturb the animals. But in England and Australia (I don't know about America) many walkers leave a trail of litter behind them and generally vandalize the environment.
Freedom and responsibility come hand in hand. Unfortunately not something everyone seems to understand.
Not really. The biggest problem is not the public damaging private property, but those who maintain the pubic rights of way delibrately damaging fences and so on in the name of claiming the property was damaged by the public. Reason why is to then try and remove the Public Right of Way and remove the need to maintain the PRoW and eventually reclaim the property.
@@johnclarke2997That is not how it works in almost all European countries.
english speaking countries are the filthiest in the western hemisphere.
@@johnclarke2997 I noticed the a similar tactic in New York state, and actually - infuriatingly - on one of my jogging paths a few miles from my condo. The homeowner adjacent to the path "incrementally" shifted his fence inch by inch, month by month, so as to encroach onto the path, with the obvious intention of eventually stealing more land. This tactic seems hugely popular, notably with billionaire Californians who want to steal their own "private beaches" from the American public who own all of them, by federal law and also by tradition that has existed since the existence of America itself.
I'm Polish, currently living in the UK. I lived in a large town but surrounded by fields, lakes and forests. I knew how to forage for mushrooms and berries before I knew how to write their names. Before I started school, I knew how to McGuyver a fishing rod, bow and arrows, and a lean-to shelter from stuff I could find in the forest. When we still had winters, we'd go ice skating or just on walks across the frozen lake. As teenagers, me and my friends spent more time in fields than anywhere else - the best place for a summer party is on the beach by the lakeside (in a forest). There were 4 of us in a 2 bedroom flat (my parents, my brother and me) but I never missed nature. Now I live in a house with a garden and I feel constricted. I can't imagine having as much land as the USA has and not being able to access any of it.
@CrimsonVipera "I can't imagine having as much land as the USA has and not being able to access any of it." There are literally billions of acres of publicly accessible land here in the US. When I was young, we lived in the city, yet there were still natural places for children to play and explore. Most cities in this country do have places that are still very natural, even if there are skyscrapers only blocks away. Unfortunately, much of this is no longer accessible, especially to children, due to the liberal homelessness laws. The homeless have taken over these once natural "escapes" from the city. It's no longer safe to let your kids go by themselves to play at the stream because they are now packed with homeless drug addicts. The one place we would go as kids, we'd catch salamanders and crawfish and play with turtles, etc. We had a tree fort and about a mile away there was another little fort we'd built. The big kids grew pot plants. LOL This was literally within a few miles of the Capital in Washington, DC. The authorities seem to be keeping a handle on keeping the actual trail free of homeless, but under the bridges, etc is another issue entirely. Past dark, it's simply not safe to be there. For all those who think there is nowhere to enjoy nature, this is vid literally biking distance from our nation's capital. As you can see, a lot of effort has been made to make sure there is a very wide variety of things to do to commune with nature, even within a large city. kzhead.info/sun/iZtqnNipi3idknk/bejne.htmlsi=R0bWunspZkkPZ1kS
Were your Polish forests private ones?
@@AntonKobaVast majority of forests are the public property, so anyone can go there.
@@revjaybird2And you still think it's okay for a quarter of your entire 50 state country to be privately owned and never accessible to the public? The owner has the right to literally set it on fire if he/she so wants and there's nothing to stop him/her or stop the fire from extending and burning public land too. And I am SURE he will be held responsible for that wildfire he caused just like SO MANY wildfire starters have before him/her. Also where should the homeless people harassed and having their lives threaten by the local rural/urban police go if not some peaceful forested area? Are the homeless people pedophiles pr even aggressive or drug users that wanna kidnap children that you're talking about them with such disdain while having no problem with one person owning A THOUSAND ACRES from his plantation owner great-grand pappy( that existed both in the North AND South of the US) while others are forced to contend with a small house and garden simply because their parents didn't came over on the Mayflower, back when even blacks owned other blacks and whites and could make a fortune off of the land they had if it was worked by people you paid for only once?
@@hardstyle905 Snow and Ice are getting rarer and more ephemeral each year in Central Europe. When I was a kid in the 90s, there was almost continual frost from December to February at the foothills of the Alps in Germany.
When I was a child living in Texas, I could roam for hours in the forest. No trails, no boundaries. Thanks to recent developments, though, all the tress have been cut down and replaced with ugly malls and parking lots. Now there's nowhere.
As a French, I never thought about that, I can go anywhere I want, even inside farms, crops... if there is a fence I won’t go in (optional) because maybe some dangerous cow or dog. Of course I won’t get in somebody’s garden, but if there isn’t any fence I won’t mind going through. I’m glad I saw your video cause nobody would have kept me from going anywhere in any country 😂
Coming from Malaysia and currently living in Scotland, it's just unbelievable how much the nature is accessible for me. Given Scotland's many hills and open areas, you really could go everywhere as long as you're up to it and being responsible when doing so. It's like playing Zelda Breath of The Wild for me, you see somewhere far away that seems impossible to reach, but you could look up for records of people crossing through that place or mountain. It's just straight up amazing when you could literally go everywhere as long as you're ready for it.
To quote a line often omitted in a patriotic (actually very socialist) American song: "There was a big, high wall there that tried to stop me A sign was painted said "Private Property" But on the backside, it didn't say nothing That side was made for you and me."
Fellow Malaysian here. Malaysia's hills are covered by dense rain forests and tropical vegetations that are too challenging for most recreational hikers to navigate safely. It's hard to look 10 meters ahead and find a proper foothold. The humidity, insects, flora and fauna amongst other things call for a lot of preparation and strength
About malaysia, YOU WANNA KILL YOURSELF OR WHAT? DON'T GO TO THE JUNGLE FOREST JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO. Thick rainforest jungles are scary man you can just disappear without any warning and it's hard to find you. Unfortunately gotta stick with recreational areas
Sure none of that is privately held land.
Go back to Malaysia. We have enough foreigners here
I am from Gremany and went to the US for one year as a student exchange. It was so weird to me how aggressively protective people were of their private property. I remember us playing soccer, or some other ballsport and our ball going ove the hedge into the neighbors yard. Not even far into it or close to their house, just slightly on the other side of the hedge. As soon as we stepped over to retrieve the ball we were yelled at and threatened to get off the person's property. This was quite a formative experience for my young self. In my opinion this whole video highlights again how America is one step further ahead from us toward realizing the doctrines of profits over people and the individual over community. We are getting there in Europe as well, but the US is more extreme I would say.
I find it funny the way Americans are obbsessed with "My property." Like little kids who are refusing to share.
@@charybdis8113 They are obsessed with the little crumbs they do have, without realizing it's basically nothing.
You're allowed to jump fences in Germany?
@@parallelpinkparakeet As I wrote in my comment, it was more of a hedge, or barrier made up of trees and shrubs, not so much a hard fence. But in a similar case, especially in a rural area as this was, back home, yes, I would have just gone over and retrieved the ball without nobody batting an eye. I wouldn't say it is explicitly allowed to, property rights are a thing here too, but people are less paranoid and protective about it. My point was that to me, this was a banality and I never expected such a strong response.
@@Mattiesneu I don't think it's fair to base an entire country off one experience, unless this happened multiple times. In the suburbs and cities the above scenario happens a lot and most people don't care if you retrieve a ball that's barely in their yard as long as you're not damaging anything.
Personally I live in the US in Arizona and grew up surrounded by almost 3 million acres of national forest so I never felt a lack of freedom to roam but i get alot of states dont have that many large national forests. I would be fine with a freedom to roam law as long as people actually followed the rules and respected the land and if there were adequate repercussions for those who didnt follow the rules. I''m also a land owner and purposely keep my land open so people can camp and hunt on it. My main worry though is that one day someone may hurt themselves on my land and try to sue me
Hold up... Are you telling me that, over there... If someone goes to the forest and gets hurt, just because it so happens that you own that forest, they can sue you?!?! That... That's ridiculous...
That's the US for you, a country made for and by lawyers. But don't hold your nose too high, we're getting there in Europe, too; every bad thing from the US is copied sooner or later under the guise of progress or "consumer rights" and similar shibboleths, with huge net costs to society. Already, beautiful trees near walkways get felled because somebody might sue if a branch breaks during a storm and injures walkers.
Here in Scotland I find freedom to roam is essential to bring up well rounded individuals. Learning about the countryside and its wildlife is good for the soul.
Legal liability is the first thing that comes to mind for reasons why lack of access continues in modern times. If someone is on your land and they hurt themselves, they can sue the landowner. The US is a *very* litigious society, and the legal lottery system is absolutely used as a get rich quick scheme. One way to fight this is to put up the No Trespassing signs. That way when you are eventually sued you can at least say they were there illegally and get off for nothing more than the legal fees ... which can still cost thousands of dollars per occurrence.
This exactly
Wait, what? In Poland you can get sued if somebody slip's on the pavement / road you own and are supposed to keep clear of snow and ice. Or maybe if you leave an old well unmarked. But regular slips and falls? They would laugh you out the court! (Also I googled about slips and falls, and the only source not about icy pavements was an American law firm that takes Polish clients.)
@@fobiaargyst5875 Doesn't surprise me that it's an American company that's doing so well at slip/fall lawsuits that they're exporting the practice to other countries. As they win & lose more cases you'll see more no trespassing signs go up as word gets out. I'm sure all they see are those "untapped" markets for lawsuits they want to turn into money :( . Hopefully you guys can stand against them.
In New Zealand we have a problem with some Americans who have bought land in the mountains and don't respect free access to the backcountry
Well - since the government does not allow them guns… adapt or find yourself in a plane back to the US.
inforce the law they either have to deal with it or leave
Amerikaner werden, von zahlreichen rühmlichen Ausnahmen abgesehen, überall in der Welt zunächst einmal als Problem angesehen.
As a Swiss the only time I've heard a complaint about me being on their "private property" in Switzerland was in English... with an American accent.
Same in Scotland with people coming from England.
holy crap, this is life changing. as an american, for my entire life up to now i though the entire world was already claimed as private property, and that exploration of nature outside of arranged/paid trips was a thing of the past. even while visiting europe i just assumed it was the same because it was such a fundamental understanding to me. this makes the world seem a little more beautiful. thanks
The heck do you live? NYC? How small is your world? Geez. I don't know where people are having trouble finding national parks and such. Finding places to roam is easy in any place I've been. Shoot, you don't even need a car. Did you know, there's these things called bicycles? Cool, right?
The argument should be for more state and federal (aka public) lands, not the right to walk through someone's backyard. This is why the left wing always fails. You people always go after the wrong issue, and then nothing gets done. Yes, please do protect and expand state and public lands. I'm down for that.
For finnish people the forests and nature in general is very important culturally. So much so that when building new housing, large swaths of forest and natural fields are left unbuilt in and around the developed area so that the residents can use it for recreation. If you look at a map of the city of Turku, for example, you can see the dense city center surrounded by these satellite "suburbs" that are basically towns within the city that have their own shops and other services, and are separated by sometimes kilometres of fields and forests. This is for the wildlife to have these corridors they can travel through without coming too close to humans. I was a city kid, living only 3km from the city centre of Turku, and i spent most of my days roaming the nearby forest with my friends and collecting butterflies in the meadows next to our house. I cannot even imagine a childhood without nature close by.
I recently found that some woodland areas I would occasionally hike in for physical and mental health were posted as no trespassing by someone who doesn’t even live here, and aren’t maintaining or developing the land. It pisses me off that natural areas are just blocked to me now, and makes me feel trapped.
That is really sad. 😢
Soooo... get over it? Find somehwere else to hike? Find something else to do for your health? Buy your own damn land? There are myriad of ways around this. You're whining about nothing.
I would just take the sign down 😆
@@martian14 Unfortunately, doing so can also create problems there...if they can figure out who did it, it can become a major problem beyond tresspass/destruction of property, it also means you take the liability for any injuries anyone who wouldn't have had permission has there that would have seen it.
@@GeneralNickles yeah bro he should definitely roll over for some fat fuck rich pig who can't let other people enjoy the land they have just as much right to be in.
As a Norwegian, I definitely take this right for granted. I didn't even grasp the concept that I couldn't just camp out anywhere I wanted when I was in the US. It felt like I was stripped of my basic human rights. When you buy a pass to a ski resort over here, you're not buying access to use the land; rather to use the resort's facilities (such as the ski lift, restrooms, cafés, etc)
@Henoik "It felt like I was stripped of my basic human rights." You allowed yourself to feel like you were stripped of your basic human rights. Most ski areas are privately owned, btw. Near most ski areas, there are in fact public lands that you could camp on, if you wanted to. Your ignorance of that does not constitute the stripping of your human rights.
@@revjaybird2 I didn't go to any American ski resorts (I mean, why tf would I, I live in Norway). I went to national parks (which are apparently both public and privately owned, but still it's possible to trespass...which makes no sense to me)
@@Henoik "but still it's possible to trespass" Did you get caught trespassing in a National Park? If so, please tell the story.
@@revjaybird2 They didn't want me to camp out there, which I'm guessing isn't really trespassing. But the whole concept of trespassing is... Foreign to me. We don't have a singular concept for trespassing over here - rather trespassing can be explained to a Norwegian by several different concepts, but at the same time it won't be complete.
@@Henoik It was probably part of that particular park's rules that no overnight camping is allowed. Parks have rules. Some parks have more rules than others. There is no way to say, "You don't belong here, please leave?"
My home area in Pennsylvania used to be like this until people started trashing certain areas then landowners started putting up signs.
We should have the right to roam, and it's absolutely disgusting that we don't. The ones against it don't have a strong case that doesn't include greed and a "me for mine and mine alone" mentality that makes me want to barf. I used to wander as a kid. I loved getting away from everything in my life. I could feel free. I grew up at the base of a cool mountain in the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas. I was only able to go halfway up after I got permission from the property owner when I told her I wanted to sit on the rocks and see the view of the hills. I told her I wanted to sit there, think, and just be alone for a while away from everything. She loaned me some gloves for the thistles, said beware of snakes, and go have fun. I wanted all of my pain from bullying, from abuse, and from other problems to be far below me where they couldn't reach me. She could probably read between the lines. She was rich. Those of us at the base of the mountain were not. However..... I was never able to get to the top of the mountain, because the guy who owned it was a gun-toting Yee-haw maniac who would shoot you first then ask questions later. I never got to see my home from the top of a mountain that looked over me for half of my life. You would think as a local I'd be allowed, but nope. I still want to know what the world looks like from the top of that mountain. I just wanted to be free to climb it and see the world from up there. I wanted to feel free, to not feel trapped and lorded over by anything or anyone anymore. I wanted to be on the top, to be the one who could conquer Something that crushed me (the mountain represented a lot of my life), take a deep breath, and just enjoy Earth. That mountain lorded over my neighborhood, but I loved it at the same time. I didn't even know what was on the other side until I looked at it from google Earth. If we had the right to roam, I can guarantee you my dad would have taken me and my brother camping on the mountain so we could hike to the top. I had an entire mountain practically in my backyard that I could have escaped to if I could have just hiked without fear. *sigh* Thinking about that view - how it made me feel like I could fly and take on the world - is still one of the most calming memories I have.
I hate the idea of right to roam. I'm a partial land owner of a forest hunting area. We have to put up signs to stop outsiders from wandering in, getting hurt, and suing us. During hunting season, we have a guy patrolling the area to keep people out to prevent a potential hunting accident.
It's always been really ironic to me that a land that used to have literal royalty that owned all the land and would fight wars over them would end up with more public space and the freedom to use it for its people than a country that fought to free itself from the same kind of royalty.
There is certainly an alarming level of irony, yes.
Moreover - the "freedom to roam" often come from times when the kings ruled the land. It was right for commoners..
It's probably because the US has so much public land so that rambles of hundreds of miles or more are possible -- there are great trails that stretch across multiple states and enormous tracts of land (National Parks, National Monuments, National Forests, BLM land, state forests, etc) where you can hike, camp, and even drive off road. Europe, in contrast, is much more densely populated, so that without the right to roam across private lands, there would be far fewer opportunities for such recreation. We've enjoyed hikes in Europe that passed through private lands, opening and closing gates as we went, but we don't feel at all hemmed in while exploring the vast wild areas of the American west (or, for that matter, of the large wild areas of the northern half of our own state of Michigan).
@@kibicz In Denmark a large forested area to the north of Sealand was the Kings private hunting ground for his Parforce Hunting, as also a large part of southern Sealand, witch had a stony fence keeping the animals inside! Today we still have a King (Actually a Queen), but with hardly any power anymore.
all the problems in america, ever boiling down now to our being in short supply of topsoil, fossil water, fresh water, and perpetual genocide of our otherwise genetic diversity, by african heroin having gotten into on the paper work side of law, the government, and media, leaving no means to stop africa's rape of our vital resources either. america was built on the backs of eurasian immigrants who have been, and are being, perpetually genocided. myself being a childless genocide victim, so utterly terrified of the heroin bitches that i have been alone for 18 years; nearly destitute, everything we worked for being dissolved, where if i had the monetary equivalent of picking one tuft of cotton i would be a multi-billionaire after taxes. africa's transparent foreign weapons systems have been on the ground and active in the united states since its inception. they don't report their numbers, they don't report their incomes, and they will always breed faster than the food grows until the food just suddenly stops.
Yesterday was a Finnish Nature Day in Finland. It's associated with a Sleep Outdoors campaign, where people are encouraged to leave their homes and spend a night outside. I just got back home, actually. Took my hammock and backpack and headed into the forest for the night, slept well and woke up feeling refreshed. I really couldn't imagine any other way to live than having an unquestionable right to access the vast outdoors.
The maker of this video has grossly misrepresented the reality of government owned land available to the people in the USA. Imagine the entire land areas of France, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden and Norway without cities or people being set aside as a park and it would still be LESS land than the federally owned lands in the USA. In addition to that each state has their own separate lands and state parks some of which are vast, also counties, townships, cities etc can and do have their own public lands. Then there are considerable private conservation and recreation areas which can be assessed. The fact that property rights and private property are respected in the USA doesn't mean there is any lack of opportunity explore the outdoors and wilderness lands.
Cope@@TheMVCoho
@@TheMVCoho Over here in northern Europe a little bit of right has needed to give room for a little bit of freedom. I'd say the important thing is that nobody is complaining about it, generally speaking. It's accepted as a cultural thing. You only see complaining when people are abusing the right, mostly by disturbing the landowners by getting too close to their houses or leaving trash behind. However, that's the kind of marginal behavior that affects pretty much any human existence. Like a passing driver can throw a soda can onto your lawn from their car or young adults can hang out near your house with their more-expensive-than-their-car sound system waking up the whole neighbourhood in the middle of the night. Typically the worst, most low-IQ people don't wander the wilderness, though, so undeveloped private property a distance away from cities is spared from much in that sense.
@@TheMVCoho I know, I've visited some. But like said, it's a cultural thing. Owning property and using it is one thing and well liked here too, but owning a huge piece of land and possibly restricting others from accessing it (accessing, not using as in downing trees and whatnot) just rubs us the wrong way. Being able to wander wherever is the very definition of freedom.
@@amandak.4246 Like I said, you own the land to be able to utilise it, but there's little point of restricting anyone hiking through it. What does it matter if someone wanders through your patch of forest? They're not allowed to build, down trees, make fires or so forth, which are landowner rights. They're just passing through, maybe picking up a few wild berries along the way.
I was living and working in Sweden for a while and was often told about the Swedish "everybody's right" to access landscapes and forests, and I was wondering why, because we have that in Germany, too, and I thought it was a normal thing in most countries. Only now I've learned that there is a small difference, as in Germany, camping is limited to designated areas, as for protecting nature, while in Sweden, everybody has the right to camp everywhere (if I understood it right). Again living in Germany, my house borders at a farmer's land, and my kids grew up observing the farmer sewing and harvesting. When jogging I'm using the pathways the farmer is using to access his land. When going out for a walk, we often took a path through the farmer's grounds. And some neighbors are doing the same, e.g. by taking the shortest way to the church or to walk their dog for a stroll. Nobody even thinks about it being something special.
Those paths you talk about in Germany (usually) are public roads. They do not belong to the farmer.
The north-south road between our house and the farming area is public, all the others deriving from it in western direction and running between the different crop-fields are the farmer's.
@@whuzzzup You've obviously never been to a real rural area like the Eifel or the Black Forest. ;-) (Hint: Even the small part of forests owned by my relatives have private "roads" on them - which you are of course free to roam, as usual.)
@@IgorRockt I was indeed not thinking about forest paths, although here they also belong to the state and very rarely can I remember a private one that is blocked (of course all of them are not for normal traffic of course). Also all Feldwege - running along the fields - here also are state "roads".
Enjoying your videos and have subscribed after this one 😁 We lived for 13 years in Scotland and greatly enjoyed the right to roam. We then moved back to England and were horrified at all the 'private property, trespassers keep out' signs and the general lack of access rights. We lasted 4 years (it would have been less if not for covid) and we are now very happily settled in Sweden. Free and unrestricted access to the outdoors is so fundamental here. I spend much time cycling through the forest, swimming in the many, many lakes that are here, and picking berries and mushrooms. When we have English guests, they always feel the need to check the limits of the access laws, and there really aren't any. So long as you leave no trace, you are permitted just about everywhere.
What happens if you're famous and people look through your windows constantly?
As a forest owner, fields and meadows owner, garden and farmhouse owner in Czechia, Central Europe … - I don’t see any conflict between my property rights and freedom to roam (as is exercised over here). People absolutely do not have “freedom to roam” on my garden or any other property which does have some intimate character (those are either fenced or indicated by other means), people are not free to dig up potatoes from fields or pick up other’s people timber or wood from forests… so what harm would come from them crossing my forest ? I do not saw the mushrooms or plant the blueberries, they grow wildly on their own (though I have some modern cultivars in my garden)… it’s normal to pick what grows on their own. Because they have a right to cross my forest, I have the same right to cross any other forest in this country ☺️ and to freely roam the beauties of nature and history… and I often do ☺️. I am big proponent of property rights …. but the freedom to roam and property rights do not interfere in the slightest … There might be exception with hunting organizations - those are not organized by “freedom to roam “, but by another law. They may organize big hunts across many forests, of many forests owners to hunt for game. Here I am not pis*ed that they hunt the game in my forest, I am angry, that I might be at danger in my own forest, because they don’t need to ask me or even specifically inform me about the hunt. (They just hold some guards on roads to forest to inform about the hunt - and I even as a forest owner cannot enter, while hunt is under way … moreover as property owner, I might accidentally use some minor access available just to me - and no one will be stationed there to inform me about the dangers)
I find your comment very sensible. We don't have as much trouble with hunting in our parts, as the terrain is more mountainous and fragmented and also because hunting is organised relatively locally and communication with farmers is quite important. As a child I was, however, frustrated with the abuse of said freedom, some would commit. A typical example would be young retired or unemployed people, that would pick our forests clean of any blueberries and mushroom - to the point that we as locals and even landowners could hardly find some for personal use, and it was impossible to pick enough to make some extra money as children did usually even in my parents' generation. Then there is a continously friction with motorcycles in the woods and now with hordes of mtb riders that errode the trails and usurp the paths, so that they're unsafe to hike on. It's a struggle, but I have hope and I certainty prefer our challenges over "no trespass" signs.
@@zagrizena I see it very much as You. Generally speaking landowners and farmers as I see it are ok with prople roaming on feet … it’s completele different when it comes to cars, bikes, motorbikes… (although if with some moderation, and they follow field roads and forest roads it’s still generally ok). Here I watched video from Norway (one of the freest of the free), about landowners being pissed by people DRIVING of road! That is big no-no even there (that really creates damages) kzhead.info/sun/ia6yn9Sqa3-Vi58/bejne.htmlsi=1FUhLKybPkB_df56 Blueberries - does it really happen that they pick them clean? When I was kid people used to use some blueberries combs - and some patches were really harvested rather more, generally speaking it would be very hard to clean them here … so much of them. Mushrooms - there is a custom here to pick mushrooms a lot. Generally there is not lot of mushrooms in forests, those are picked clean from forests… there is a custom - those who can well predict their hiding places and hunt them (mushrooms are very elusive 😂, they appear and disappear in a blink) - those are the successful hunters 😊and shrooms belong just to them. (Generally people don’t pick shrooms in their woods, but in such part of woods/forests where it corresponds to their particular theory of what shrooms might need, theory about where the elusive shrooms will show their heads 😂) (I too like part of the forest far away from my own)
@@petrskupa6292 In general I agree with you, and the foraging doesn't bother me in the areas where there's large swathes of uninterrupted forest or even in the state owned forests, but the area where I come from, isn't exactly wilderness. The blueberries aren't abundantly fruitful as is, and literal rows of cars coming every day for a whole day throughout the summer to "comb" them, really doesn't help. Now, the locals also respect each other's woodland that's nearest to the house and typically leave those for the owner to pick, but people coming don't care about any of that. With mushrooms I'm generally fine for whoever has a good sense or is prepared to trek trough the forest to pick them. Just leave those growing in the orchard next to the house and on the bank facing the house, please. And leave the fruit and crops alone, unless the owner offered you some. I think most of it comes down to communication and respect. Farmers are mostly bothered by cars obstructing narrow roads, litter left behind, trampled grass or even grain, inexperienced (with the terrain) drivers inconveniencing them on the road or speeding past or even through farmyards. Quite reasonable reasons, I think. Anyone who showed at least some respect, greeted, maybe asked where to park the car, was always welcomed cordially. We never had a problem with people just foraging occasionally for fun and for personal use. I've read and thought about this before and I'm more and more convinced it's a weird artefact of our communist era. Pre communism, our customs would probably more resemble Germany, but in communism some things, including forests were considered a "public good" and in a sense everyone had the same right to them, ownership notwithstanding. So now we have a conflict of mindsets between owners, paying taxes and obliged to care for the property, who feel they should have some priority in using their property and even some say in how others can use it, and the non-land-owning general population, who views the forests as some kind of communal estate that they can use as they see fit, as that is their right. Situation being further muddied in the areas where forest estate is completely cut off from people's residences or their open land estate. And as always, when people are too adamant about their own rights to see the other's point of view, the tensions are inevitable.
I wonder do you have a right to completely cut that forest down to a ground? Do you feel like you *really* own it?
@@AntonKoba You own it enough to pay taxes from it, but not enough to manage it without limitations 🤷♀️
I would have to guess another part of why it is so restrictive is because of the liability laws in the US. If someone were to hurt themselves on your property. Then you can be held liable for their misfortunate situation. This has personally happened to me. I neighborhood child hurt themselves climbing on a tree in my front yard. For some reason, this was my problem and I had to pay for their medical bills.
Are you serious!? That is just plain stupidity! Who is dumb enough to write such laws? Jeeze!
Basically opposite approaches. Over here the parents would be responsible. They haven't taught their kid how to climb a tree or to not climb a tree. That's the big thing parents are supposed to do, educate their kids.
@@Gazer75 It was negotiated with my insurance, and they raised my rates for 2 years after paying out $2000 to the other family. I never spoke to or ever saw these people, aside from receiving a notice from my insurance.
@@gubid Here the police and courts would laugh if someone tried to sue someone because their child fell down a tree. The child got a lesson and wont do it again most likely. And because healthcare is "free" there is no insurance company to involve. A case that would be close is some MMA guy doing a military dive of the pier near the Munch museum in Oslo and hit the bottom. Got paralyzed waste down. After suing the municipality for lack of visible signs he apparently won in court. How much hes getting has not been decided yet, but his lawyer is hinting at bout a demand for 1 million USD.
@@Gazer75Here (another EU country) we do need separate liability insurance ("familial insurance") for such mishaps as kids (not your own) falling from your trees or fences. Our health insurance is organised around mandatory insurance provided by typically non-profit mutualities.
Yeah. I could actually hear myself if I did this in Europe, repeatedly asking throughout the entire journey, "You sure we're not going to get shot?" "Did you talk to the landowner?" "You're not lying to me are you?" "You know what they do in Texas and a few other states if you just go walking around like this"
15:36 That farm in the picture is in my hometown, and it's been a source of debate this fall during the foliage season. The town has closed the road leading to the farm to non-locals, because too many tourists came by every year. They camped out on the lawn, blocked the road with their cars, left trash, and also traveled onto the private property of this farm and others along the road. I could only imagine if we didn't have private property laws here, the owners would have to just deal with the flood of tourists who have no regard for their privacy or property. Americans don't really understand respect for others, unfortunately.
It's mostly the lack of respect taught at home that causes people to act irresponsibly whether it be to other humans or nature itself. The American way of life cannot coexist and have a proper balance with nature. Most Americans are too greedy and wasteful
Some Americans don't understand that respect, Not All.
When I was a kid growing up in Schleswig-Holstein, I often walked home from school instead of getting picked up by my dad by car or use the school bus .... the shortest way across fields, a small forest and a cow pasture (a distance of just under 2km). These were all privately owned and I often ran into the owners and instead of yelling at me or scaring me away, the most they ever gave me was the advice not to cross the cow pasture if the cows were too close or to look out for certain birds in the forest and if I saw them, to tell the forest owner or to follow only on the tractor furrows, so as not to damage the sowing
😊
Imagine that....freedom and learning😅
You lived🥲
Same. I basically grew up on the cow pasture next door and no one minded. I knew to stay away from the bulls' fields, though. ;)
@@janwemmel4414 Those things have no mercy 😂
Thank you for putting a name on this thing I can not explain to people around. I am a French living in Canada. I miss my freedom to hike anywhere I want. Here we have to buy the right to go in a forest or on a mountain. At least in near urban areas. I guess that if I’ll go far away from cities (I mean no road anymore far) I would be able to hike everywhere. It was a shock for me. And it is a shock for every family or friend visiting from France.
You better fix up france or that won't be possible much longer. France is turning into a Islamic African authotherian state
Are you referring to trails maintained by the government? You're just paying for their maintenance
@@BandGGaming for what do you pay taxes? That money should be enough to maintain them…
@@BandGGaming we already pay enough tax as is here in france. and a dirt road isn't really high maintenance. Also enough people travel in the forest here to create a natural "road" or more like a path that have no cost at all.
@@BrgArt You're paying for way more than just a dirt road. Govt-owned nature trails are highly maintained due to invasive plant pressure and ecosystem degradation. I am in ecosystem restoration + maintenance and it's a constant struggle battling invasives because we no longer are allowed to manage land in the way these ecosystems are adapted to be managed (very few people know here on the east coast, our ecology is fire-adapted, and has been managed with controlled burns for thousands of years). Because of this, there is a lot of work to do--pulling, sawing, herbiciding and pesticiding, caging and cleaning shrubs and trees so overpopulated deer don't eat them or knock them over during meaty antler season, etc. Land here suffer from the extirpation of people from it and the current culture of poor land stewardship, which I personally feel is caused by not having a culture of access and by extension, collective responsibility. The govt should be paying for this with our taxes anyways, so I don't support having to pay for nature access, but it is a lot more than simply managing a dirt trail. If you are hiking on a trail or public park, you are experiencing an EXTREMELY curated environment.
…as someone who grew up in Poland, with a family that taught me about hiking and foraging all throughout the year for fun, the concept of not being able to enter a forest is terrifying.
YES! Terrifying is exactly the word I was looking for. I am from Finland and hiking, foraging etc. is just the way we live here. I will go to the nearby forests, fields, lakesides and such every single day with my dogs. Every day! What on earth would I do if I didn't have access to those places? I don't know who owns the lands and I don't care. From the age of five or so, I have roamed around the place completely freely. My life would have been so different without that right. I have never actually realized how strongly it must have affected my life and personality, that I was able to do that. Not just the right to roam, but the safety of our society, has enabled so much freedom for me. How would I have ever learned anything, if had been dependent on my parents on taking me to some park to run around a little? Humans are not meant to live like that. We belong into the nature around us, we are supposed to be a part of that.
Never know when a crazy land owner with dogs and a gun will chase you for being in his forest
Well, there is an exception: when the forrest is marked with signs "Private Forrest. Entry is forbidden" then you are not allowed to enter this area. If a forrest owner does not allow you to pass you may not pass. But when there are no sign or fences - you are free to go.
In Norway you can put up a tent for a max of 4 days on private land. But you can just move your camp a 100 meters and you'll be fine 😊 Same goes with boats, you can anchor up for 4 days. And it's illegal to deny access to the beach 🏖️😁
Made me realise how important the right to roam is to me, something I always took for granted.
The USA does have lots of national parks. Even more so than Europe. Not to forget, more nature too. When you go to Alaska or Wyoming etc.
@@victorsamsung2921 It becomes like a theme park though. You have to take time off and pay to travel and get into the parks. While that's a great opportunity, there's something to be said to just be able to walk into your nearest forest and chill out.
@@Crozz22 If i'm not mistaken, even in many rural towns in the countryside there are many forests and hills you can walk in or on. In States like Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arkansas etc.
@@victorsamsung2921 For most Americans it's not as simple to access tho? I'm in Norway and there's a forest just a 5 min walk form my home where I can pick mushrooms and berries or pitch a tent. We've even foraged on our short walk home from daycare. It's like that even in Oslo, not just rural towns.
@@victorsamsung2921 You don't even know what you are talking about. "The USA does have lots of national parks. Even more so than Europe." Absolutely wrong! Europe has a total of 376.461km² of national parks (546 national parks in total), the USA "only" 210.000km² (63 national parks in total). So Europe has clearly more of them, for the record. "Not to forget, more nature too" Oh no. That's just wrong. Can't get worse from here. You'll also find waaaay more nature and more diversity here in Europe, whatever metric you want to go for, when you say "more nature". edit: typos
The problem that we have on the USA is several reasons. The biggest is that the majority of Americans do not have a respect for other people. We use to have the ability to access many areas. This really started 30 years ago. Our access to streams rivers and lakes have been restricted. The other biggest reason for this is lawyers. If someone gets injured on your property you are responsible for their injuries and they can sue for large sums of money. Where as in Europe you are responsible for your own safety.
@timothyhoster4951 "The other biggest reason for this is lawyers." Our biggest problem in this country is lawyers. They have literally ruined every aspect of life here in the US at some level or another.
Well, if you don't maintain your public access roads, the owner can also be responsible in most of Europe. For instance, if somebody fall on your entrance, or damaged on your access roads. But of course it doesn't extend to areas that are not explicitly designed for visitor access.
An even larger problem is healthcare. If an injury costs upwards of thousands of dollars you have no other option than to sue.
@@Sigma-xb6kn "you have no other option than to sue." This is why there are so many No Trespassing signs. The land owner is not at fault for someone hurting themselves while on the property uninvited, the property owner is also not at fault for medical expenses being so high. So why do you think it's ok to sue the property owner to pay for someone else's bills? The fact that you seem to think this is reasonable is WHY there are so many signs and fences and people protecting their property to the degree that they do.
@@revjaybird2 You put words in my mouth. I just gave reasons for why it happened, not that it is a good way to organize society. If I told you how Roman slave markets worked I wouldn't support slavery, now would I? I agree that the landowner wouldn't be at fault if somebody got hurt on their property but sueing would be the only way to not live forever with debt. You confuse description with prescription.
my bad trait is that I wholeheartedly want to believe if I ever get into trouble while on vacation in the US, I can approach someone's home and ask for help. Like I want to believe so badly people would help me and recognise me as not a threat, and not threaten me or yell at me to go away. But I've seen so many videos of even a neighbour ringing a bell for something alarming being considered "thin ice" and "dangerous"... Idk! Going to the US in general feels so dangerous sometimes!
@@amandak.4246 but that's just so so sad
@@DonutToast Because it truly happens. There are still pockets of the country that will treat you kindly, mostly small towns. But crime has hardened many people in the US, the traditional unlocked-door-neighborhood has mostly vanished. Some people even leave cars unlocked to not have their windows smashed by thieves.
It's remarkable how little freedom there is in the 'land of the free'.
It feels surreal to know current US property law is on the same level as the one Europe had in the middle ages.
Well it's because landowners are liable unlike in Europe
That's a superficial way of looking at it. Why is medieval fantasy so popular in America? Why do so many like to fantasize about being a member of the nobility or royality? Maybe because that's what they secretly crave and owning land or property effectively grants them exactly that. They want lawd what they have over others and be one of the Jones's.
@@gavinrolls1054 People can be sued in Europe too
I actually never thought about the right to roam because it feels like our natural right over here in Europe. Now, I feel thankful that we have this right. Many times, I think that the Land of the Free is not that free after all.
The “land of the free” is a police state.
Why do you say Europe when most European countries don't have the right to roam.. it's just Scandinavia and some eastern countries.
There is no unlimited freedom. You always have to choose whose freedom has priority. Do you allow the freedom of a reasonable, non-profit access for the public or do you prioritize the freedom to demarcate private land? Is it more important to disallow being insulted, threatened or singled-out or is it more important to speak and express oneself freely? We don't have a perfect answer to questions like that, but we know several wrong answers.
@@valentijnrozeveld3773 What "most European" countries are you talking about? Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Italy... are not "Skandinavia" and not consdiered eastern Europe. I just did a quick internet search and did not find single country in Europe where "hiking in the nature" is generally not allowed. Restrictions I see are just on Natianal parks, specially designated private property and such. Please teach me, I want to learn.
In this im on America side, private property is private. And i dont wish some random people will molest my property. Ofter i found broken bottles, sweets wraps and othet stuff in ground.. On my property i had it made so in accsessible as possible and 78 property owners had made a pact that no hunters can enter our property to hunt so we have most wolf and bear populated area. People cant respect nature and right of private property so they have no right for it. And it should be state to decide. I remeber in USA was situation about 15 years ago where person enetered on private property in night and drown in local pond and victims family accused property owner for having non fenced pond.
I stayed in Sweden for 6 months in 94 and was surprised to find this right to roam (with respect to the land and the owner of the land). As an American, most of the land I’ve ever been around east of the Mississippi is so thick in brush that I wouldn’t care to wander into the woods. In Sweden it was amazing to walk through wooded areas and have the ease of walking amongst the trees. Here, I get stickers, thorns, ticks and whatever unknown thing you may step on. I’ve been mostly suburban for my life and can’t say I’d be very confident in handling an encounter with a bear or other large predator. That being said, there are quite a large number of state and national parks that are very enjoyable and allow camping and hiking and offer a very fine time out of doors. But I do agree that it seems problematic for individuals who have such a vicious hold on land and forbid others from passing on their property, however laws would have to change to ensure a landowner would not be held accountable for injury or other mishaps a citizen may encounter when traveling on the land. As it stands now it is imperative to post “No Trespassing” signs to make clear that if a person attempts to take legal action because they were injured on your property that they were not supposed to be there and they neglected to heed the signs. It sounds ridiculous because it is.
As a land surveyor that has fulfilled U.S.F.S. maintenance contratracts many times I can say that if you want to roam like the Europeans you can almost walk a lap around the entire nation without ever setting foot on a piece private land and 99% of the landscapes people want to experience are on public lands with trails and camping nearby so if Europeans are coming here and thinking americans are being held back by some private land laws should understand most private land holdings are so small with homes within sight of property lines and neighbors homes so where you gonna camp that doesn't violate the rules of not being too close landowners homes so I don't believe it's a problem
If I ever come there I will test that by walking through some private forest in hillbilly country (deep sooth where they speak soothen drool). Would Alabama be good option? They've shot their own sign...
i'm scottish and ive always found the idea of tresspassing so bizzare, i live in the countryside so ive spent a lot of time walking through fields. scotland it beautiful, theres so many mountains and lochs and forests and fields to explore and cherish, those who are so amazed by nature don't destroy it here (if you take the effort to fight your way up unknown mountains youre not doing it to set it on fire).
@@Gary-bz1rfI live in Scotland and the right to roam is great up here, but you’re right that a good public footpath network way-marked on Ordnance Survey maps like they have in many parts of rural England is really helpful for planning walks. With this, you know that you’re unlikely to become caught in bogs, have to cross rivers or clamber through impenetrable forests.
In France for example coastline access is public, you have to allow passage along the beaches (even if some individuals try to impede it, e.g. in the Mediterranean). I was shocked when going to Ireland and realizing you could not hike across the countryside, it’s all fenced off. As a kid, we spent nearly all off our time in the woods, building huts, barraging rivulets, etc. Childhood would have been quite different without these experiences
In some states here in the US, ocean coastline passage is permitted and landowners are not supposed to halt that. I think the only restrictions there is one may not be automatically allowed to use docks or other man made structures.
I'm Finnish and I have never seen fences anywhere but to keep livestock from wandering off. It's a completely foreign concept to me that someone would fence off their property just because it's their property.
That, my friends, is called enclosure. In fact because of it many Britons at the time became extremely poor, unable to hunt or graze animals. (Don’t trust my American textbook word lol)
Yup, grew up in the French countryside, and nature was our playground. You try to avoid stepping into fields and gardens, if you see a fence, you know it is because there's livestock there and come in at your own risk. But otherwise, taking a tent and going hiking in the mountain and sleeping there was something we could obviously do.
Childhood in America has devolved to being shut inside either your house in an unwalkable neighborhood and dangerous streets full of SUVs or school where you're treated like a prisoner shuttled between them in an SUV because only vagrants and thugs walk the streets. I see my young siblings living like this and it's pretty depressing.
From my point of view, the Right to Roam doesn't really lead to any negative effects. People are still mindful about what kind of land they are walking on. I haven't seen any signs of vandalism in Scotland, Sweden, or Norway where this applies. I enjoyed it, and actually they're my favorite holiday destinations. I go there with a motorhome, I enjoy hiking, biking, well, they're just great. Also, a great source of videos for my channel :P, speaking of which: the right to roam and the lack of it also translate into the local drone laws somehow. Scandinavia is a lot more permissive, luckily. So yeah, I can only see the positive effects. And even with this right to roam, people don't just cross your backyard. That never happens. Furthermore, I'm originally from Romania, and as a kid, I enjoyed walking on agricultural land, on forests, on mountains, on hills. I never thought that this could be trespassing, even though someone technically owned that land. People in Eastern Europe still tend to take it a step further, and they usually leave a mess behind. Just because it's publicly open, they feel like they're not really obliged to clean up after themselves. It's a matter of education, I guess... Not of who owns what..
As someone who lives in the UK (Midlands and North Wales depending on time of year, as a uni student) I have never lived far from nature. I can't speak for people who live in cities like London and Birmingham. But I do know that Manchester and Sheffield have a pretty cheap rail line between them that passes through the derbyshire peak district (i know someone who got a full days rambling for just 6 quid travel using that line), and as a result, is pretty popular amongst ramblers and hikers. My home town was built on a marsh, there was a public access marsh land practically on my doorstep. To get into town, there was an abandoned rail line that had been turned into a public footpath, lined with trees and bushes, including fruit trees (apple and damson mainly.) and blackberry bushes. One of the routes I could tale to school took me directly through a common used by dog walkers, farmers with horses and cattle to graze, people just wanting a pleasant walk and school kids wanting to take a more direct route. Then where I am at uni, there's a path that starts just a 2-3 minute walk from where I'm currently staying, one of my friends took near daily 8km hikes after work, I can literally see Eryri when walking back from lectures on a clear day and there's a society that organises free guided hiking and rambling trips in the area. I don't think I would ever be able to live without having the outdoors so easily accessible and readily there. And if you have access to a car, well, most footpaths in at least the area I grew up are interspersed with car parks that don't charge. Or you had the option to cycle out instead.
Unfortunately, the policies here in the US have created a culture of outdoor theme parks, where those areas of access are so rare and so crowded that people use them as they would a theme park. They don't know how to act outside in nature because it's not something that they have grown up with. Every occasion to visit nature is regulated and restricted, much like a trip to Disneyland. This can breed bad behavior as people don't have a universal feeling of ownership and stewardship so the disturb landscapes, graffiti on trees and rocks, leave trash for others to pick up, and generally just don't know how to act. That behavior discourages opening up lands for fear of misuse and destruction. I remember going to Red Rock Canyon a couple of years ago and seeing this one area where everyone thought it was a great idea to build cairns, not because they were needed to mark the trail but because it looked like something fun to do. So instead of getting to enjoy undisturbed nature, I was left looking at a bunch of rock pyramids. All because people didn't know how to act appropriately and enjoy the environment accordingly. If we had more access and fewer restrictions on exploring the outdoors I think people here would be more accustomed to being in nature and start treating it less like some amusement park.
Great point. Nature shouldn’t be treated as amusementparks, and it will be when the access is very restricted and people grow up without a connection to their surrounding nature. Schools in Norway (and also kindergartens) are generally good at including nature in their teachings and kids are taken out into nature as part of the curriculum. I don’t know if that would be doable for american kids, but it would a good idea I think.
@@blue2mato312 yes i would love to see more people and kids eaten by bears and other wild life in the usa your forgeting that almost all of the eu has no danger in your wild life do you have man eating animals that life within walking range of your front door in the usa gators and bears wolves snakes that can eat 9 year olds whole exist within citys and can be seen in your back yard letting people in the usa walk around with animals that will eat them isnt the best idea thats why as kids being in the woods without an adult istnt the best idea might have to plan to burry your kid before they reach 10 we havent hunted all the animals in the usa that can eat us to nearly as much as youve done in the eu you guys basicly have no more animals that youd worry about your kids being alone in the woods with most of your worries are bug and plant ones weve got lots of preditors waiting to eat even fully grown adults here its not safe to just roam the woods without at least a shot gun with slugs for any bears weve got much more wild woods than you got over there in the eu its like the comparing a empty field to a jungle of teeth and pain plus you dont want to run into a bear they eat you alive and fresh the like to eat the soft chest meat first while your still alive not a good way to die having a bear rip you apart while your still breathing and screaming
Exactly. Here in Washington (the one with the Space Needle, not the Dark Carnival!), even the "public" parks now require advance permission to enter, in the form of a Discover Pass, a placard you pay for and put on your car... and can ONLY obtain when you go to renew your registration once a year. Decide not to cough up $45 extra to get your tabs but later decide you want to go to a state park? Sucks to suck, you're legally unable to enter until your next tab renewal, better hope you remember to pay for the pass this time! Or at _some but not all_ state parks, pay $10 per day for a single use pass.
@@amandak.4246 you obviously aren’t a hiker and have no idea what “Leave no trace” means. Unless the good lord decided to miraculously pile a hundred stacks of rocks into the canyon then yes, it’s a great example of stupidity in nature. It’s not petty when yo go for a nature hike only to find that the area has been redecorated by ignorance.
@@anonymousnekokamikannakamui I’m sorry it seems like you are struggling with a lot of anxiety about wild animals. And yes you do have a lot more of them, but I’m sure if they were constantly eating children over there I would have heard about it at some point. You are wrong in your assumptions of my country, it is not in the EU and yes we have animals like wolves, lynx, brown bear, wolverine and moose. I’m adding moose because they are more dangerous than the others except for the polar bear which is not on the mainland. You would only need a gun for protection of the polar bear. Moose are generally only dangerous if a mother with a calf feels threatened, but they can kill. There are wolves (and moose) around in the forests right outside of Oslo and teachers do take their classes of kids there as do the adult employees working with kindergarten kids. It’s great for them to connect with nature. In your country there are more fatalities of children than in mine due to one big factor, guns. You have hundreds of millions of guns and military grade assault weapons and this is what you should be most afraid of in my opinion.
Despite living in the United States, I was able to acutely roam quite a bit as a kid. I've lived in Idaho my whole life, and I love to hike and just wander. I even remember just climbing or slipping through fences. Honestly, one of the hardest things for me to see, is all the places I use to explore getting consumed by buildings, extremely expensive houses, and just greedy rich people who don't want to share. I hate seeing my childhood being destroyed like this. I'm seeing the love of natural world die in the US, and it's extremely sad.
@@amandak.4246 ok, then why don't they build houses that people can actually afford to live in? The houses that were built were I grew up are these massive houses that cost millions of dollars. The destruction of natural spaces in the USA is completely driven by greed. Not by any desire to actually help anyone. I hate the selfish culture that's become so common here.
@@amandak.4246the houses and buildings should not be built into nature they should be built in cities
@railroadforest30 Where do you think the cities came from? And cities are horrible places to live, why would anyone want to live there?
@@amandak.4246there are ten homes sitting empty for every single homeless American. We don't need more homes.
@@WhobgobblinI’ve heard too many stories of teenagers being shot for accidentally knocking on the wrong house lately. You can’t trust that you won’t get shot for trespassing anymore
Very interesting video! I am showing this in my RCSM-200: Introduction to Public Lands and Recreation Administration course at Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana, USA! Thanks for great content!
What an incredible well edited video, congratulations for that. It also calls the attention to a quite huge cultural difference which hasn't be touched so often. However it is one of the experiences which troubled me pretty much during my last vacation in the US a few years ago so I like to share it with you. It was my fifth time in your home country but the first vacation where my wife and I wanted to explore parts of New England, so NY, MA, ME, NH and VT. Our fault was that we did it with the naive expectation of driving around, stopping where it is beautiful and than strolling around the landscape on hiking trails like we did it before here in Germany or in different other areas like Scotland, Ireland, Austria, Scandinavia etc. Well driving around was of course no problem but it was almost impossible to find nice areas for hiking or just walking around a little bit in peace. If we did find a rare place then it was called National Park where we had to pay sometimes pretty expensive entrances and often full of people on very limited and paved trails. That was not really what we were expecting. When we passed the coast side of Maine we wanted to make a little break and relax a few minutes at the ocean but same problem. Nothing except a small National Park, so we payed around 20 bucks for a 30 minutes break. At Cape Cod we found just a tiny small public beach but overcrowded. Besides the way to the beach there was a bench for sitting and looking at the water but when we tried to go to it we were instantly and unmistakable called by the owner of a nearby house that this bench is private. So well, New England made a superficial impression of being beautiful. However we couldn't find a chance to really enjoy it outside of our car. Very sad vacation for this and some other reasons.
In Sweden, commercial activities ARE allowed on private land (such as berry picking, rafting etc.), as long as you don't damage the land and it isn't cultivated. This was a topic of debate about a decade ago, but it was decided that it should remain as is. However, fishing is regulated and generally requires a license covering the particular lakes and rivers you plan to fish in. (with the exception of the big four or the ocean)
Same here in Finland. Only for angling and ice fishing you don't need a permit.
Riverways and the wetted shorelines are still public here in the USA.
@@DrD0000Monly navigable rivers. In our state you can’t walk up a stream on private property if it isn’t navigable.
Here in the Czech Republic, the right to walk through the countryside and enter forests is very traditional and is mentioned in the oldest medieval texts. The right to enter the forest was enacted by the Imperial Patent of 3 December 1852 - Forest Law. The same situation is in Austria and probably in all other former Austro-Hungarian lands. A similar situation is in Switzerland too. I don't know anything about such rights in Italy, France, Germany and Spain. But I have walked more than a thousand kilometres in each of these countries without any problem. A few years ago I slept near Rosskopf (next to Freiburg) and in the morning two cops on horses saw me and asked me to try my hammock and they didn't say anything about sleeping in bannwald.
In Germany (presumably just as long as in Austria and the Czech Republic) there is also a general right to enter the forest. Riding and driving is only allowed on paved paths. Closures due to logging work must be observed because of the risk of accidents. Cultivated and planted areas may not be entered.
No, in Austria entering private forests was only allowed in 1975 with a new forest law (Forstgesetz) and up to this day it is usually forbidden for mountain bikes. Actually in the Habsburg monarchy in 1852 the Reichsforstgesetz (imperial forest law) was enacted that explicitly forbade people to enter the forests!
In Norway this was codified into law in 1274, during the reign of Magnus Lagabøter (Magnus the Lawmender). This is part of The Landslaw (The Law of the Land). Since Magnus was a poweful king, also known in the rest of Europe, this inspired similar customs to be codified later on.
A fantastic summary and thoughts, thank you! ...as well as making the job of pairing a pile of socks much easier by having this to listen to! :)
Haha, glad I could make the task easier!
What really irritated me in eastern europe and the baltic states, was that there are basically no trails or forest tracks that aren't just someone's driveway - they practically always end at a house in the woods or a farm. If you want to get anywhere, you have to use busy roads. Whereas in western europe, there's usually a network of open trails and tracks you can use on foot or by bike as a quieter and safer alternative to the roads. England is a weird mix, with their "bridleways" that are legally open, but very often completely grown over.
I think that if any politician suggested that we should restrict the right to roam here in Finland, in favor of property rights, they'd be committing political suicide. The right to roam is essential, and people use it. Finns tend to love nature, and the right to go where you want to enjoy it cannot be questioned.
I'm all for the 'right to roam'. I'm an American who lived in the Finnish countryside for a couple of years. I don't remember ever seeing a fence.
And if there is it's on farm to keep wild animals in enclosed area or a side of a road to keep moose and other big animals from running into roads.
A human lives about 80 years, that granite has been there for billions of years and there are pine trees that have probably been standing since the viking age. Many feet have roamed those places before us and 150 years after our passing, they are still being roamed by people who don't remember we existed. Trying to grab a part of it and fence it out for others seems a bit pointless. Well, selfish, actually. And to defend that with force.. Maybe against an invading nation. Other than that, many of us like guns, there are a lot of those, but try to find a single person who feels compelled to own one for defending their spot of land. I sort of understand the idea, but there's just no need, no need. "No siellähän kulkevat, ei se oo minulta pois." That said, while very much legal, someone else finding out your favourite cloudberry or chanterelle spot might cause some fuming and conjuring of ancient gods.
...or into the barrels of a shotgun of some angry landowner, you might want to add? ;-)
yeah but unlike in america, we dont have a 13% of the population making it impossible for this kind of shit...youd think that instead of insulting our country or hating on it for not having such an d"obvious right" like think about why we cant have nice things? its not cuz americans are prudes who dont understand that, its that we can do it without having to call the cops cuz people dont teach their kids manners or respect no more. so instead of venerating another country for something try to figure out the problem in your own before you cast judgement cuz its real easy to compare an contrast when you ignore the core root of the problem.
I'm for the right to roam--how is this an insult to America? What does "We don't have a 13% of the population making it impossible for the kind of shit" mean? @@Aqsticgod
Lauren Frances lead me to this channel. And i am glad she did. I am subscribed .
I love private property, I do not want strangers on my land. Maybe in other countries you have faith in people making the right choices but in America you do not want to let people have access to your property. This is why we have many free to roam areas, national parks galore, walking trails, hiking trails, public water areas.
I love the idea of framing the right to roam as a human right.
it should be a human right, and here in norway it practicly are. here you free to roam whereever you want regardless if its private land or not, tho i with that means out in nature, and not in somones backyard:) we on the other hand also have a leave-no-trace law, so means if you go camping somewhere, make sure to bring your garbage and so on.
sure, it should be your right. But if anything happens to YOU, it must be solely your legal, financial, and moral responsibility, not mine. Deal? If you dont like that, dont go into my turf, uninvited. Its that simple.
@@michajastrzebski4383 that's kinda given In the hole world with us as the only exception. If I do something stupid and get hurt, ofc it's my own fault and need to take responsibility. How you can sue a property owner over it in the US are so stupidly mentaly retarded no words can really describe how messed up your entire legal system are, but it allso show how messed up and retarded your entire Healthcare system and worker rights are. If I tried to do the same here, the judge would just laugh at me and Toss me out of his courtroom. Allso In my country if I get hurt and end up in the hospital, it ain't gonna cost me anything, because getting free Healthcare should be a basic human right witch it is in more or less entire Europe. Furthermore not just that, if I get sick, I allso would still get fully paid as if I was at work. Here in Europe we allso understand people are different and some people are getting more sick than others and considering it's not something you can deside if you get sick or not, there's no limit on how many days in a year you allowed to take sick leave. Simply put, if you sick, then stay home.
@@michajastrzebski4383 But that is exactly how it is in Europe? Why should you be responsible for something happening to someone else (as long as you not purposfully done something to harm someone, like laying a trap)?
@@michajastrzebski4383The US must really be an awful place to live in^^...
When I lived/stayed in North America I was shocked at this kind of private ownership of land and the various "no tresspassing" signs. Also the fact that you simply couldn't walk out of a neighborhood into the surrounding fields - already because there aren't any "Feldwege", only driveways to farms and actual roads - which is probably connected to the understanding of private property. I don't know if I could really live in a country where you cannot walk into the open. It feels so limiting.
There are millions of acres of land in the United States where you can walk and hike for free. Where I live I am surrounded by Woods mountains and Forest and I can go hike almost anywhere I want. I respect the parts that are private why can't you?
In Sweden you can walk anywhere. If you are a big ranch owner in the US...Why wouldn't you let people walk on your land?
@@johanswede8200 Some do -- particularly when it involves allowing people to use a path to connect two different park areas. But in the areas of the U.S. that have big ranches, there are invariably also enormous tracts of publicly owned land, so walking across private ranches is rarely necessary. Europeans commenting here seem to have a hard time grasping how much open public land there is in the U.S. Which is odd, because we run into Europeans enjoying U.S. public lands while on holiday quite often.
@@markweaver1012 I get that. The US is enormous. But what I as a Swede don't get is the "no trespassing" thing. It is just weird.
@@markweaver1012 You seem to miss the entire point of this discussion. It is not about how much public land there is. It is about the general concept of freedom and landownership. In the Nordics you just cannot own land to the extend that you are able to block access to it. Because nature belongs to everyone in the country, that's why the right to roam is called "every man's right". This is ultimate freedom.
I live in rural England and there is only one place where you can't walk for free 'near' me (8 miles away) that place is a castle that is owned and operated by someone even then it's only the large garden area where you have to pay to go into, everywhere else is free. You can go pretty much anywhere as long as you don't go to peoples homes which is understandable or fuck with their things like farmland and animals. A popular walk in my area is through three different farmed fields and is right next to the police station. The only thing that they've done to restrict access was stop one of the gates from being opened, because its the main gate that they use for vehicle access and people were bringing cars through it which they shouldn't be doing. But that's just where I am, I personally don't venture far and when I do since I'm basically at Scotland's border it's usually to Scotland.
Trayvon Martin was killed, minding his own business, walking through the neighborhood.
A point that should also be taken into account is liability and the fact that so many people will try to sue landowners for a broken ankle or worse. There is a case in Colorado where a landowner who owns a mining claim closed off the trail to a popular mountain because the state court set a precedent that anyone who hurt themselves while hiking though his claim had the legal right to sue him personally simply because his name was on the deed.
That old idea of just removing warning labels/signs and getting back to letting Darwin sort them out seems more and more alluring... :-
Why though? If the damage was not caused by a person or a man-made trap, it should be considered as self-inflicted. If it was caused by a trap, then whoever placed the trap is to blame. And of course, if you choose to do a dangerous activity and without faulty equipment or another person being involved you end up injured, it should again be considered as self-inflicted.
I did not realise that the US was such a nanny state. Here people are responsible for themselves and no-one can claim that I as a landowner are responsible for them hurting themselves. Of course I would help them out if I come across them in the forest, but that still don't make me liable for their actions.
@@frantisekvrana3902 "it should be considered as self-inflicted." It *should* be, but it's not. The property owner is liable for it, even if it's completely the person's fault. One of the worst offenders of suing property owners for other people injuring themselves is the state sponsored Medical programs. They can and will sue whomever they possibly can in order to have the injury bills paid for. We do have socialized medicine in this country for the disabled, poor, and most children..... and these programs are often who sues property owners. There is no such thing as "self inflicted" if the person is on state sponsored socialized medicine. Gov't lawyers suing private citizens.
@@revjaybird2 That idiocracy at its finest.
For the supposed "Land of the Free" the USA are really restrictive in quite a lot of ways. I definitely feel a lot more free over here in Europe.
Yep. It's precisely why I actually call the USA the "Land of the Oppressed". In practically every way and aspect of life, they have far less rights and freedoms, than citizens of other first-world countries.
@narve7337 It's a land of free consumers and it's proportionate to the amount of money one has to spend...
That's amusing considering the complete disregard Euro governments have for your natural rights. Your collectivism amounts to hell on earth in my book.
Btw, I was never once "locked down" or masked during the last 3 years nor were my usual activities curtailed in any way. Can you claim the same?
@@MatthewC137 Freedom requieres protection. Americans don't understand this and thus they are less free.
There was a case this year (that I think might be ongoing?) regarding Dartmoor national park, the only place in England where you can wild camp without landowner permission, that was revoked earlier this year after a court case - the land owner argued that camping didn’t count as an outdoor recreational activity, which is bizarre. But a month or so ago, that decision was overturned, so wild camping is allowed again I think. Crazy.
18:10, it is incredibly important that people understand that the Castle Doctrine does not apply to land. The boundary for the Castle Doctrine is a physical building and/or enclosed vehicle.
The content-maker basically produced propaganda with how bad of a job they did explaining American legal concepts.
That which is not illegal cannot be punished sounds like a neat concept. Where I'm from if it's not illegal they'll just call it 'disorderly conduct' or one neat one is 'committing an act that serves no legitimate purpose'.
Great video! I grew up on a remote island in Michigan, where I could hike/hunt/x-country ski/fish pretty much anywhere I wanted. That was great until more and more of the land became privatized. OMG! We who were born there were suddenly faced with denied access to Lake Michigan! That was just a part of it, but having lived through such a transition, I really am impressed by the European "Right to Roam" and embarrassed by the US's stance of "No Trespassing". I'm really struck by how much the "who owns this land" attitude had inhibited my fishing and hiking over the last half century. Love the comment below from Norway! It's not only ironic... it's becoming iconic in the worst way.
almost feels egotistical to see so many no trespassing signs; like what? when you die, is that no trespassing sign still lawful? (unless you've set up a will, a representative, or other arrangement)
But would you take offense if a bunch of homeless pitched camp in your backyard, ate the apples from your trees or some shady looking strangers carrying guns were always walking through as your family held their backyard bbqs? To a certain extent, those guys paid a lot of money for the land, to find their own slice of privacy and quiet, if they wanted it to be used for public access, they would have donated it to be a park.
@@katieluv8422 Why assume that this would happen? Teach people to respect privacy and property and you don't have to be afraid of all that. If you listenend closely, you heard that there are some (unwritten) laws on how to behave, so all of this would just not happen. And we don't carry guns anyway.
@@roesi1985 In a utopian world, yes, but the reality is U.S. society is filled with bad actors and irresponsible people. In order to have the tools to stop that, the laws are needed.
@@amandak.4246 I think you've missed the target. Yes, I could do those things along with Everyone else. Back then, most landowners were completely okay with the hikers and beachcombers. Of course, we picked up after ourselves too. It became frustrating when folks would buy a small bit of land, stay in it for two weeks out of the year, and picket it with no trespassing signs. Folks lived there for decades without needing to do such a thing. I think those who move into a community and attempt to make it like the place they came from are the selfish ones. We were all spoiled by being surrounded by nature; and I (among others) do get angry that some folks feel justified denying others access to nature.
Another thing in the us that is backwards and I find annoying is all the 'no parking, no stopping, no camping' signs along many of the public highways and roads even in the middle of nowhere. Come on, why? Its so stupid. The 'no parking' signs make me feel ashamed to have been born in the us.