I really appreciate the link Richard! I think there is some very valuable information in it. I've highlighted a few key points that seem to always get glossed over when Waccos talk about how much better Europeans are than Americans when it comes to the issue of public access vs private property. I would also like to point out the consistent tendency to ignore the effects of population growth (referenced towards the end, under "Criticism") when advocating for practices that predate a couple centuries, and culturally established under feudalism and serfdom. Again, thank you for the link. I found it very reassuring that some of us are not the uptight and defensive, painfully American, property owners who inherently lack good ethics or European sensibility, as is often the accusation.
Just as a reminder, we're talking about "...a path through a field and wood that was, until recently, part of a much larger orchard parcel. That piece was bought by a vineyard and subdivided...
"In England and Wales public access rights apply to certain categories of mainly uncultivated land—specifically 'mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land.' Developed land, gardens and certain other areas are specifically excluded from the right of access. Agricultural land is accessible if it falls within one of the categories described above....
Many tropical countries such as Madagascar have historic policies of open access to forest or wilderness areas. This practice in the rainforests of eastern Madagascar and in the Madagascar dry deciduous forests has led to considerable destruction of habitat, much of which is effectively irreversible...[citation needed]
Today, the right to roam has survived in perhaps its purest form in Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Here the right has been won through practice over hundreds of years[1] and it is not known when it changed from mere 'common practice' to become a commonly recognised right....
In Denmark, there is a more restricted freedom to roam on privately held land....
In Finland...Everyone may walk, ski or cycle freely in the countryside where this does not harm the natural environment or the landowner, except in gardens or in the immediate vicinity of people's homes (yards). Fields and plantations, which may easily be harmed, may usually not be crossed except in the winter.
Everyone in Norway enjoys the right of access to, and passage through, uncultivated land in the countryside.
In Sweden allemansrätten (lit. "the everyman's right")...gives a person the right to access, walk, cycle, ride, ski, and camp on any land—with the exception of private gardens, the immediate vicinity of a dwelling house and land under cultivation.
In recent years population growth has increased pressure on some areas popular for hiking and increased mobility and affluence has made previously remote areas more accessible. There is some concern that without ecological education, some recreational users have limited understanding of the economic and natural systems they are exploring, though significant harm or damage is unusual, the main concerns being disturbance of sensitive species of wildlife (particularly by dogs), and litter.
The 1992 Rio Convention on Biodiversity (subscribed to by 189 countries) expressed some caution about the potential effect of unlimited access, especially in tropical forests, where slash and burn practices undermine biodiversity.[citation needed] For this reason, broad public access rights are challenged in some countries' resulting Biodiversity Action Plan. Critics from defenders of proprietorship sometimes assert that the All People's Right threatens the essence of ownership and the "management practices" of property owners, who may or may not have created and preserved environmentally important qualities [22] Private owners and their representatives have also argued that newly created access rights ought to lead to financial compensation for private landowners."