I wrote a little piece (about taking a walk) for Mother Earth News about a year ago. The piece has gotten mostly negative (sometimes violently so) reactions. One reader had this to say today:
"This article is one of the most idiotic and infuriating things I've read in quite some time. I'm really surprised and disappointed that the editors approved its publication. If the author showed up at my place and started taking liberties with my property to suit himself, I'd take his stupid walking stick away from him and beat the bejesus out of him with it. By his reasoning, I should be able stop by his place, pass personal judgement on anything I see, and make whatever changes I prefer. Can I smoke in his living room? Can I make a pass at his wife? I don't happen to like cats, so can I remove his? Can I paint his house a different color?
What's the point of burdening myself with the expense and trouble of property ownership if any drunken moron can come along and assert his 'rights' over my property? I happen to own my little place and can and do establish any rules I see fit, and can also hang up any 'obnoxious' sign I choose. If someone doesn't find that to be satisfactory to his personal sense of aesthetics, that's just one more good reason to stay the hell away.
I used to manage a beautiful 10,000 acre ranch, and dealing with trespassers was always a huge problem. I had horses shot, elk poached, expensively stocked trout ponds fished, fences cut, cattle rustled, pastures trashed by ATVs, forest fires started, you name it. When challenged, many trespassers voiced the rather socialist sentiment that the land was 'too beautiful' for the owners to keep to themselves. I would always respond that they were welcome to make an offer on the place, then maybe they could make the rules. Then the day came when a lady who had the owner's permission to play on the property managed to injure herself. She successfully sued, and will never have to work again.
But that's not the point. There are huge problems in the world that I have no power to control. One thing I do have a little power over is my personal environment, small as it is, and I'm very thankful for that. I also happen to work very hard to pay for it and I'll be damned if anybody will violate it without a fight. This author needs to haul his belly full of booze down to the local real estate office and purchase a piece of land big enough to satisfy his wandering proclivities. He would, however, likely have to work harder than he'd prefer in order to pay for it.
He also needs to reread Thoreau."
I guess he didn't like my piece.
9 comments:
I agree with the commenter. A voluntary society is a peaceful society, and we should all respect each other's rights and privacy.
The commenter asks really good questions, Allan. Is it OK with you if he violates your rules and preferences in your own home and on your own property? I bet not.
Best,
Ian
I might agree with you, Allan, that all lovely lands should be open to all of us, not just the rich. But then I see what trash and destruction so many people leave behind when they visit beautiful sites that are open to them.
I’d like to point out that all of those events minus the old lady hurting herself happen with the owner’s ‘obnoxious’ signs up and with him or her policing the place. Putting up signs only deters those with respect for the property in the first place, the ones that would cause no harm, and be respectful.
I do think the suing is a major problem. Placing the land owner responsible for everything, baring all the costs and risks, is definitely a problem. Maybe attempting to change that policy would have a better outcome than attacking those trying to protect themselves. It’s hard to assert the right to roam while we live in a system that punishes those who share their beautiful land.
I also think it’s kind of telling when he treats your wife as your property: “Can I make a pass at his wife?” in the list of objects of yours to judge and defile.
Ian, as always, thanks for your comments. We have a voluntary army. Does that make us a peaceful society?
Ian, as for your question? I have no problem with someone taking a walk through my property. There is quite a bit of difference between a home and a walking path. To equate walking on a path with smoking in my living room is a logical fallacy. :)
Woods...I haven't seen all that many walkers who carried tons of trash to deposit in beautiful areas. Most comes from those who have motorized vehicles. The common mistake people make is to lump hikers/walkers in with hunters and ATV users. I find Walkers to be a respectful group of people.
I'm with the Ramblers of the UK, who have established decent laws over the rights of access on traditional trails. My understanding on how the law works that if a path has been traditionally used as a walking path, no property owner can take away that "common use". See the Walk Magazine link to the right for more on their advocacy.
For the most part, we protect the property owners in this country, and not the property. Mountain top removal, stockyards, suburban developments and my neighbors tall fences (which pretty much destroy traditional migratory routes for deer on my ridge) and other obnoxious things we tolerate, certainly have impacted more land than a few Walkers trash.
One point of the piece was to question the "Property Owner Is Right No Matter What" when it comes to pedestrian recreation. I stand by that. I hope others do too.
Zeal: I thought the same thing when he equated a wife with property Good observation!
Thanks for your comments!
allan
Hi Allan,
Our army is NOT voluntary! It is funded by force and used with force. Just ask anyone who volunteers not to pay for it, or any soldier who volunteers not to fight...
I think the commenter makes a valid comparison: You want the freedom to use others' property the way you choose. He wonders if you honor him using his standards on your property. Clearly, you want him to honor your standards on your property, but you want to honor your standards on his property too. This isn't cooperative or peaceful. It's exactly what leads to wars. Respecting each other and our differing choices makes peace.
Best,
Ian
Hi Ian,
I'll cede you the point on the military. That's not an argument I'm ready to defend. :)
Let me make the point another way.
I'm wondering if you see a place for a sit-in (and other non violent demonstrations)? Would you oppose my spouse's tree sit? I'm also thinking of the lunch counter protest at Woolworths which led to desegregation at private lunch counters? Those four Black kids in North Carolina certainly didn't respect Woolworth's property rights.
Would you also oppose the "right to roam" laws that the UK, Sweden, Norway and other more civilized places have? In Sweden, you have the right to "camp" on a person's property. How about the Kinder Scout Mass Trespass in the UK that led to the creation of National Parks in the UK (and also "right to roam" laws).
Whereas my actions (tearing down a few plastic signs) were not on that level of importance, in a sense, this was a non-violent protest.
Much of our feelings regarding private property are cultural. Cultures can change. Sometimes it takes a bit of civil disobedience to bring about that change.
As always, I respect and admire your critique.
Allan
While I agree with more access to walking, I think a certain amount of privacy needs to be respected. First off, I think equating your rights to walk ideas to "right to do anything I please, like paint your house" is a bit silly. Walking does no harm, and the only issue I see again, is privacy. I believe if walkers gained the right to walk on private property, that it should also be illegal for government to use testimony or even to gain a warrant to search as a result of what a walker experienced on a landowner's property (aside from harm done to the walker). Still, other privacy concerns not pertaining to the law arise. Do I have the right to take pictures of your property as well? I suppose it wouldn't hurt in most cases, but I still think a landowner should have the right to at least make parts of the property off limits within reason. I believe a good solution would be to give tax incentives to land owners who allow walkers to cross at least a portion of the land.
I also agree with you about the ugly signs for the most part, but again what other way does the owner have to communicate his wishes? Certainly not an ideal solution, these signs. I would much rather see a government controlled registry that lists properties for an area and the owner's wishes for each of those properties, so that a "walking map" could be drawn for an area. In this way, if the property is sold or abandoned, the map could reflect it, and we wouldn't run into the issue you did when you found the abandoned house and had to tear down the signs (obviously no one cared if you were on the property, except the signs themselves).
We should start here, and see if further measures need to be taken, but I think a lot can be done before we forcibly declare all property open walking territory, and still gain back a decent portion of our planet to experience without violating landowner's rights too much.
Also, I haven't commented before--I am Joey's friend from College (I live with him currently, he may have mentioned it). I follow your blog and occasionally post it to reddit.com, hope you don't mind :)
Hi Allan,
I think we need to learn to respect each other's different opinions, and that extends to our opinions about our stuff.
I think the best way to preserve and use land in the way you want to is to buy it, or buy the development rights, or the walking rights, or whatever. Or get permission by being a friendly neighbor and asking.
I believe in non-cooperation with forceful governments (redundant...). Government ownership of lands and busses and everything else on the planet muddies this discussion, but I basically think we should respect human beings rights to their own preferences on their own property, unless they are causing clear injury to others. So I'm in favor of private all-black bus lines, or child-only pet stores, or property where you can only wear pink and purple, or restaurants where you must smoke. ;-)
On the run; busiest month of my life...
Ian
Hi Byron,
Thanks for your feedback and ideas. I think the Swedes have the privacy thing figured out. You can't go within a certain amount of feet--and can only walk on uncultivated land.
But these are dreamer issues...not too popular in the USA.
Thanks for posting that thing on Reddit. That seems to generate a whole heck of a lot of traffic on the other blog. I also get to hear from folks who come through after you do that. They stick around and continue to watch this thing being built (which is coming along at glacial pace).
And of course, you, Joey and Lauren are more than welcome to take a road trip to visit our place. Camp out a bit. Go for a couple of hikes. I'm always looking for an opportunity to pollute the minds of the next generation.
Ian: thanks for taking the time to respond!
Cheers!
allan
Post a Comment