New Neighbors Planning to Block Access to Ragle Park

For many decades my small neighborhood has accessed Ragle Park via 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, with the lower portion sold to a couple from the midwest planning to retire here. They will be breaking ground sometime in the coming year.

Recently I wrote to them, on behalf of my family and the other neighbors who use the path, asking if they would still grant access via the lower edge of the property. A new path here would have little-to-no impact on the property in its placement and would see only a very small amount of traffic. But of course it would mean a great deal to those of us who rely on this access to enjoy the public land as we do. The traffic on Bodega from here makes biking or walking to the main entrance impossible, especially with kids.

The couple, however, has replied in the negative, stating that "[d][/FONT]eep concerns for our privacy and liability outweigh your wish or anyone else's wish for open access across our homestead." I find this response pretty terrible. Community right-of-ways exist all around the park. Denying neighbors access to public land seems so wrong here. Sebastopolians live and breathe with liberal principles in mind; they are probably the most community-minded town in the country, and a reaction like this goes against every fiber of its being.

Does anyone have a suggestion on how to handle this?
Thanks, Katy

"Bought by a vineyard" and "sold to a couple from the midwest," Katy writes below. Welcome to Sonoma County's growing Wine Empire. I posted an article yesterday from the PD about a couple from Illinois that the County approved their new winery in the Dry Creek Valley.

"Replied in the negative," Katy adds. Why should they care? Their only objective is to extract wealth from out county and take it away. "Neighbors" have no concern to them.

Since Katy asks for "a suggestion," mine is to join those of us who object to the replacement of the Redwood Empire by the Wine Empire. Speak up. You can do this in many ways. Your choice.

"Orchards," you mention. They are rapidly disappearing, being replaced by industrial vineyards. Then the wineries move in, with their non-ag operations, such as restaurants and weddings. Sebastsopol is becoming part of Sonoma County's Disneyland. People from all over come to enjoy our rural lifestyle, while destroying it.

I go to Ragle Park many times a week, where I take my beloved dog Winnie to play with other dogs. The loss of access to that dog park would be tragic, yet it could happen, in spite of the "liberal principles" of most of us. Principles and being "community-minded" are not enough. We need direct action, and a lot of it. Otherwise, we will lose our agrarian culture.

Offer to address their concerns ... they do not know you ... you might be smokers and start a fire ... you might have dogs that bark ... put yourself in their place ....

we're in a litigious society ... liability is a real issue ... offer to sign a waiver ... offer to trade something of value to them ... bring them some flowers and pastry ...

a few thoughts .... good luck .....

Yes, this is true. Trying to have empathy, just surprised/hurt by the tone and lack of willingness to even have a conversation on the subject. But also don't want to be on bad terms with our new neighbors before they even arrive! Thank you.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Offer to address their concerns ... they do not know you ... you might be smokers and start a fire ... you might have dogs that bark ... put yourself in their place ....

---

I believe that's true also. dustyg.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sealwatcher:

I could be quite wrong but I recall that access over a period of time creates a presumption of continuance. I would check with an attorney right away...:wink2:

---

not really sure but public liability is a very real concern for a land owner. Would their homeowners insurance cover a public path? Probably not. Maybe if you can find a way for that to go away for them they might relent without a court battle.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by katelands:

...The couple, however, has replied in the negative, stating that "[d]eep concerns for our privacy and liability outweigh your wish or anyone else's wish for open access across our homestead." I find this response pretty terrible...

Does anyone have a suggestion on how to handle this?
Thanks, Katy

---

You may have a way to keep this easement. It's called prescriptive rights, and it has to do with a long established right to pass that has not been historically posted "no trespass". Do a little research and see what you come up with. I'm not a lawyer (that would be a joke) and you might need one.
Good luck. Your new neighbors don't sound very neighborly.

Sounds like you've already blown it. Should have let them move in first, brought over a housewarming present like some wonderful Gravenstein apples and local artisan cheeses along with info on Raggle Park and the Apple Festival etc. But here you are already planning on stealing their property and have made them feel awful and worried about their privacy. And ew! threatened them with noisy kids and animals crossing their property.I'm surprised they replied quite frankly.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Willow:

Sounds like you've already blown it. Should have let them move in first, brought over a housewarming present like some wonderful Gravenstein apples and local artisan cheeses along with info on Raggle Park and the Apple Festival etc. But here you are already planning on stealing their property and have made them feel awful and worried about their privacy. And ew! threatened them with noisy kids and animals crossing their property.I'm surprised they replied quite frankly.

---

Who says I have animals and noisy kids, and even if I do, how is simply trying to take a walk in the park that is only 100 yards away, instead of getting hit by a truck on Bodega, 'stealing' anyone's land? Ah yes, you're the poster worried about dents to her car from hitting a bicyclist if we get a bike lane on 116, so I doubt you care much about the lack of bike safety.

I don't think I've made these people feel 'awful and worried about their privacy'; rather, I think theirs is a clinging, righteous response, one of 'MINE MINE MINE!!!' No consciousness of the fact that this land was here long before them and will be here long after them, that they'll occupy it but for the blink of an eye, and that the pleasure they could grant others, their neighbors, by agreeing to a minute or two of its crossing to make available the bounty of public space just feet away far exceeds the pleasure they'll gain by locking themselves in and everyone else out. The neighbors who live behind me would have much faster access to the park if they could cross 'my' land before getting to the property that I describe, and I would be very happy to let them do so. Words like 'stealing' have no place here.

And excuse you, I am not the poster who is worried about dents to my car from bicyclists, lol
I just think that they should share the road and share in the cost of using that road. But let's not change the subject here - which is you apparently wanting to steal property rights... lol
you, too, shall come and go
and you certainly think you're privileged and entitled
have you considered using the park entrance?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by katelands:

Who says I have animals and noisy kids,....

---

I do understand about the liability issue (in theory) and I, and the other neighbors I'm sure, would have been happy to sign releases. Privacy wouldn't have been an issue due to the placement of an adjusted path. It's a large, rural parcel--no one wants to cut right through anyone's backyard. But it's irrelevant now because it looks like we do have a legal easement based on many years of use. Thanks for the great suggestions and PMs!

This is actually a legal easement established over a period of time and not disputed by the previous owners. I think this is established over a period of 7 years. Yes, check for your legal rights!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Richard Nichols:

You may have a way to keep this easement. It's called prescriptive rights, and it has to do with a long established right to pass that has not been historically posted "no trespass". Do a little research and see what you come up with. I'm not a lawyer (that would be a joke) and you might need one.
Good luck. Your new neighbors don't sound very neighborly.

---

Do you actually own property along the edge that you want to walk on? If its just that you want to cut across an edge of the property but you don't own property immediately next to that exact property edge the easement by prescription won't work. Not that you would win anyways. It only applies to the edge that you own already and share with that neighbor. The easement by prescription is only valid for an edge of property that you own property immediately against. It doesn't apply to the rest of your neighbors edges, just the one. Nor do you get an easement by prescription pass for all your neighbors only the property owner with the easement.

I think Willow had the right idea. A housewarming present can go a long way.

I feel so sorry for these poor folks moving in next to you, Katy. And I'm embarrassed by what you refer to as "Sebastopolians liberal principles." Did it ever occur to you that "no" was a perfectly reasonable and acceptable answer to your request? Obviously not- which is the core problem with this liberal Sebastopolian mentality that you profess. IT'S THEIR PROPERTY! You asked and got a no. But instead of being an adult about it, you're acting like a child; "I said please and thank you- you have to say yes!"

Nobody is blocking access to public land, they're just not granting you permission to traverse theirs...which is theirs to grant, not yours to demand. And everything I've read here is about what you want, what you think you're entitled to, what would benefit YOU. What are you offering THEM? A lawsuit before they've even moved in?! How neighborly of you. Not! If there's anyone here (as far as I can see) who is acting against "every fiber of (Sebastopol's) being," it's you my friend.

Let them move in, let them get settled. They're from out of state, their going to want to make friends and acquaintances. As has already been suggested, bake them a pie and invite them over for coffee. Be nice!! I wake up many-a-morning and see people in my field, feeding the pigs, saying good morning to the horse and cow- all of whom I have personally granted permission. However, the very second that someone thinks that it is their entitlement to traverse my property, I'll be on my porch with a 30:6 as a reminder of who's property this is. "Sebastopolians" may apply, but only friends will be welcome. Make friends, Katy... it'll get you further than demands and a lawsuit.

I'm sorry you feel sorry but I completely disagree. I'm not the only one who has been using this path for years. Many people have, for generations, and their longstanding use of it actually does constitute a legal right, though I never said anything about a lawsuit. And this wasn't a 'demand' at all, but a request to make the path a non-issue by moving it to the property line. We could easily have come to a neighborly agreement about it--as they have in many communities adjacent to the park--if they had been open to conversation. Keep your 30:6 and name-calling to yourself, please.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nancypreb:

I feel so sorry for these poor folks moving in next to you, Katy. And I'm embarrassed by what you refer to as "Sebastopolians liberal principles." ...

---

"Poor" you say. Not really. Anyone able to buy such a property, partly for a vineyard, should not be described as "poor." They may be good people, but not poor. It remains to be seen if they are good neighbors.

Especially given the drought, it is fair to ask questions. Will they dry farm? If not, they are using our common water supply. Will they use pesticides and fertilizers? If so, they will be poisoning their neighbors, as bad apple Paul Hobbs continues to do, breaking promises, on Watertough Rd, spraying away by schools with over 500 students. If you live in a community, it is legitimate to expect neighbors to protect their water, air, and access to public property. These new people should be advised, up front, that certain practices will be challenged by those of us seeking to preserve rural Sonoma County.

I like the last paragraph below, about baking pie and watching one's neighbors in the field and "feeding the pigs." Some people move to Sonoma County to appreciate the rural ambience, and then proceed to destroy it, especially by planting yet another vineyard and extracting wealth from here and taking it away. I made my own mistakes when I moved here from the city in l992, and needed to be educated by my rural neighbors.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nancypreb:

I feel so sorry for these poor folks moving in next to you, Katy. And I'm embarrassed by what you refer to as "Sebastopolians liberal principles." Did it ever occur to you that "no" was a perfectly reasonable and acceptable answer to your request? Obviously not- which is the core problem with this liberal Sebastopolian mentality that you profess. IT'S THEIR PROPERTY! You asked and got a no. But instead of being an adult about it, you're acting like a child; "I said please and thank you- you have to say yes!"

Nobody is blocking access to public land, they're just not granting you permission to traverse theirs...which is theirs to grant, not yours to demand. And everything I've read here is about what you want, what you think you're entitled to, what would benefit YOU. What are you offering THEM? A lawsuit before they've even moved in?! How neighborly of you. Not! If there's anyone here (as far as I can see) who is acting against "every fiber of (Sebastopol's) being," it's you my friend.

Let them move in, let them get settled. They're from out of state, their going to want to make friends and acquaintances. As has already been suggested, bake them a pie and invite them over for coffee. Be nice!! I wake up many-a-morning and see people in my field, feeding the pigs, saying good morning to the horse and cow- all of whom I have personally granted permission. However, the very second that someone thinks that it is their entitlement to traverse my property, I'll be on my porch with a 30:6 as a reminder of who's property this is. "Sebastopolians" may apply, but only friends will be welcome. Make friends, Katy... it'll get you further than demands and a lawsuit.

---

Shepherd, dear, the parcel under discussion here wasn't sold to be a vineyard:

"That piece was bought by a vineyard and subdivided, with the lower portion sold to a couple from the midwest planning to retire here. They will be breaking ground sometime in the coming year."

Of course, the people who are going to retire there probably aren't poor.......

AW

poor:
1. lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society."people who were too poor to afford a telephone"
2. worse than is usual, expected, or desirable; of a low or inferior standard or quality."her work was poor"
3. (of a person) considered to be deserving of pity or sympathy."they inquired after poor Dorothy's broken hip"

I've seen a few people jump on the first meaning. Contextually speaking, I think the poster was going for the 3rd meaning. As in: These poor people that just want to retire here and be left alone are already being bothered by neighbors they have yet to meet.

Yes, they are deserving of sympathy. I live in a fairly rural area of Sebastopol and all my neighbors love to hang out in my yard. It's big, we have animals, and we have an awesome park-like set up for kids. I've worked it out with neighbors to allow for their families to come and play with mine, or stop by when we are out. They have my PERMISSION to do so. I would be rather upset if someone came by without asking, or respecting my space. I don't think it very Sebastopolian to expect by default access to someone else's property. How is that being respectful?

Besides, it's not like they are blocking the only entrance. You have other options that are in place for everyone to use. It's not at all respectful or neighborly to jump down someone's throat that you haven't even met - let alone researching legal options before they've even moved it! Very un-Sebastopolian if you ask me. I feel that living here is about community and compromise. Sometimes in those situations you don't get what you want; instead you value the relationships you can build more than the "benefits" that those relationships bring you.

I agree with the previous poster that asking nicely doesn't always give you a yes answer - and that is OK!

Origin

I do hope that someone in our community lets them know about Wacco, so they can see how our conscious community has responded without even knowing them. Then they might enlighten us even further in their own words, although I doubt if anything they say would make a difference.

So many assumptions being made here!

We actually have met them and have corresponded with them on other subjects before this came up.

No one is "hanging out" on their property without permission; all we have done is ask permission! (And again, that's to move a well-worn path far out of anyone's way, not to cavort on their play structures or molest their pigs.)

No one jumped down their throat. Our request was humane and heartfelt. Their response was aloof and curt, which I found hurtful, and perhaps I used some strong language in this thread when strong language was used with me, but no one has attacked or threatened my neighbors in any way.

I'd like to do the right thing--that is why I posted this in the first place. I am open to suggestions and also differences of opinion, but jumping down MY throat makes it hard for you, or the poster with the firearm, to get your point across.

What you don't see is that we're not trying to get something we don't have, we're trying not to lose something we already have, and have had for years. It's a difficult and complicated position--to be suddenly unable to send your kids safely to the park when you always could, simply because a grape grower had to make an even larger profit. It's taking away one of the most wonderful things about where we live and our day-to-day life here. Of course we don't want to lose that, and of course we'll see what we can do to keep it, especially if it's really within our rights and can be done without impinging on them.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by monicapl:

... I would be rather upset if someone came by without asking, or respecting my space. I don't think it very Sebastopolian to expect by default access to someone else's property. How is that being respectful?

... It's not at all respectful or neighborly to jump down someone's throat that you haven't even met - let alone researching legal options before they've even moved it! Very un-Sebastopolian if you ask me...

---

Shepherd, for as active as you are here on Wacco and in this community, I am dismayed at your narrow, slanted, and manipulative interpretation of the word "poor." It is as though context means nothing to you. Frankly, I don't think you're that stupid. I understand you have an agenda you wish to further, but please...don't derail this dialogue by completely ignoring context and affixing the MOST inappropriate definition to language used. (THANK YOU, MONICA for demonstrating some basic common sense!!)

I've never been "from the city." The last person in my family who was "from the city" was one Jasper O'Farrell. My people ARE the "rural neighbors" who educate the young, fresh newbies, and that is all, Katy, some of us are trying to do....educate you. I think you're open to suggestions, ones that add gust to your sail, like what your legal options may be, but I don't think you're open to difference of opinions. When confronted with that, you're suddenly no longer seeking advice! Nobody here is jumping down your throat. Nobody has called you names. We are simply saying that "no" is a perfectly respectable and reasonable answer, even to a humane and heartfelt request- "no" is ALWAYS an option. Again, I don't think you ever considered that- and that's the problem with this nuvo-Sebastopolian mentality.

I drove down your road just the other day, Katy, just to see your dilemma, and I see what you're talking about. You would, indeed, have to get in your car and drive all the way around to the front entrance of Ragle. That is unfortunate and inconvenient. But considering that you have met them already and have corresponded on other issues, only goes to suggest that you have made a less-than-favorable, dare I say "poor" impression, to have been so readily rejected. Perhaps another neighbor should have been the one asking.

Frankly, Shepherd, I think it equally remains to be seen if Katy is a good neighbor (so much easier to say when you're talking about the outsiders who don't know all this chatter is happening about them, versus the backyard victim in the situation. To draw a parallel between Paul Hobbs and these folks moving in from the midwest is really an unfair and unneighborly presumption). Many of us have had to learn to accept the new-comers, like Shepherd and yourself Katy.... now it's your turn.

And I'm sorry, Katy, if firearms scare you, (you seem to be quite hung up on the reference). It is simply a language known to be used by us backwoods, redneck, country folk, on rare but articulate occasions. We don't use that language very often, but if/when we do, there is no mistaking our point...welcome to the country.:wavatcha:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

"Poor" you say. Not really. Anyone able to buy such a property, partly for a vineyard, should not be described as "poor." They may be good people, but not poor. It remains to be seen if they are good neighbors.

---

I don't think assumptions are being made. We are using the information given. I can only speak for myself here; I wasn't trying to jump down your throat. I was merely saying that sometimes we don't get what we want. "No" is always a possibility. One that you should be prepared for. You see their response as "aloof and curt." Is it possible that they are just comfortable in setting a clear boundary? Maybe they don't feel the need to sugar coat it as much as some do. Heck, I'm even guilty of sometimes being a little too soft in my saying no. Just because they want their property to be theirs and not part of public domain doesn't mean that they are rude.

Now that I know that you've had more interactions with them and still got a noI feel that you seeking a legal route is really the wrong way to go. It's somehow worse knowing that you've met them and still got a no. Seeking legal advice will really set you up for a bad relationship with them.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by katelands:

So many assumptions being made here!

.... and of course we'll see what we can do to keep it, especially if it's really within our rights and can be done without impinging on them.

---

:firstplaceribbon:
Vocabulary Word of the Day

goes to Dixon for

Evince

"to show (something) clearly"

Denigrating people for simply refusing to give us that which they don't owe us would seem to evince an attitude of entitlement. If you think they owe it to you to let you traverse their property and that their refusal reflects poorly on them, your thinking is self-centered.

Seeing so many on this thread agree with you reinforces my impression that self-entitlement is nearly a defining feature of Sebastopolians (or at least of the Wacco subculture).

I have not followed every response to this thread so I may be repeating this information, but as I understand it the owners of the property bought it after it had been subdivided. So shouldn't the onus and legal pathway lead back to the original owners and their lack of disclosure if a right of way did in fact exist? The fact is the new owners are also new to the area. Give them time to form community bonds and learn the "culture" before asking them for something they may not realize the value or history of. Like others who responded, I think its great to bake them a pie, bring flowers for your garden and even an apologetic or at least understanding, note. As for the advice here, I would agree that seeking legal advice overtly would not foster a good relationship, but doing legal research on precedents and how to handle this amicably might be a potential next step. It's always good to be informed before acting.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sealwatcher:

The quick turn to acerbity and biting sarcasm...

---

Are you referring to my post? Well, it's not that I never turn to acerbity and biting sarcasm; when people seem to richly deserve those responses, I do occasionally dish them out. However, my post you seem to be referring to is not one of those instances. It is a serious critique, devoid of any acerbity or sarcasm, as far as I can see. If you feel my critique is mistaken, please make your counterpoint rather than just attacking me for politely expressing my opinion. (And note that a criticism's being unpleasant to hear doesn't make it acerbic, sarcastic, or an affront--though those who respond to criticism with knee-jerk defensiveness will see it that way.)

Quote:

---

...and most of all, the personal attacks and blaming...

---

Are you referring to the personal attack and blaming leveled by Katy against her new neighbors in the initial post of this thread, or to your negativizing projections upon my post, or...?

I'm probably going to regret stepping in and posting.

Just curious about a few things.

1. How is the OP so well informed about the location of the home (re: "breaking ground" comment) on the property to ensure that they're not using it for the structure?
2. Will the OP file suit to prevent the owners from building if this is the case?
3. Why isn't the OP re-directing her energies where she can do some good for more than herself and a few neighbors?

Directed to the OP:

4. If this is so important to you, and you value it so much, why not offer to buy that piece of land from them? Then you can make it a public walkway.

*donning fire-retardant suit*

Katy,
Since you asked for suggestions...

Check out your legal rights, of course.

Once you know what your true legal rights are (probably cost you a bit in legal fees), you can then decide your next move.

Just because you MAY have the legal right to demand access, does not mean that it is the best idea to do so. It could cause years of bitterness and anger and possibly even retribution.

You might decide to get to know the new neighbors and earn their trust, respect and friendship. Remember, you are still a stranger to them at this point. Be patient, show them trust, respect and friendship. They could turn into the best friends you ever had. Show them how important it is to have good neighbors, to BE good neighbors.

Then again, you may just decide to accept the fact that you will no longer be able to access the park so easily any more and that you will have to drive to an entrance like so many people must do.

I sympathize with your situation. I and my neighbors have been walking our dogs through a large empty field to a creek trail for over 25 years and the field is now slated for development. It has been fenced and no trespassing signs have gone up. There is nothing that we can do except be thankful that we had the good fortune to use that access for all those years. Now we must find another way to go.

I wish you the best of Life, :yinyang:
Tom

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by katelands:

For many decades my small neighborhood has accessed Ragle Park via a path through a field and wood that was, until recently, ...

---

Well. After a lot of thought, and much good advice here, I'm not going to pursue it. It seems clear we could get the easement but it's stomach-turning to think of going to the park only by virtue of having fought with our neighbors to do it. Sort of defeats the purpose. I don't want to be on bad terms with them. I agree, I shouldn't have even asked before they had a chance to move here and know us better. Thanks for helping me come to this conclusion, particularly those of you who were understanding about it.

Probably the right tack to take. It is a shame that we cannot be more like parts of Europe, where hiking on private land is a given. Check out Sweden's Open Land Policy (or another Scandinavian country, not sure). But we Americans are just so up tight and defensive about private property.

Here is a link to 'right to roam" policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by katelands:

Well. After a lot of thought, ...

---

"Freedom to roam"--imagine that. How wonderful.

I would add Aldo Leopold's concept of "land ethics." You can read about it in this classical ecologist's book "A Sand County Almanac," in his essay "Thinking Like a Mountain." He starts with the Golden Rule, and adds, "The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land." He later adds, "Man (sic) is only a member of a biotic team." Someone with more tech skills than mine could provide a link.

Native Americans did not tend to believe in the concept of "private property." I have owned land for over 40 years. I work it and protect it. I also share it, especially with other animals, including insects, and life forms, many of which are nocturnal and unseen.

It was only since the agricultural revolution, when nomads began to settle about 10,000 years ago, that private property developed. It may end up being the cause for the demise of the human species, who then began to engage in wars--with ballistic and rhetorical weapons--to defeat and destroy other humans, and anything in their way. It is a sad history that has destroyed untold millions of lives, mainly in the struggle for the conquest of private property. "Mine, mine, mine--all mine!" Fortunately, my grandmother taught be a better ethic about sharing.

It is fine to disagree, but when it gets to the ad hominen (personal) attacks of a few people on this thread, it is painful. Let's find better ways to have civil discourse. I appreciate the originator of this thread for taking the high road on this matter and am sorry that some of the comments were made in a mean-spirited way.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Richard Nichols:

Here is a link to 'right to roam" policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

---

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...<sup>[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."</sup>

If nothing else, you have pointed out how complicated the simple act of walking has become. Over population may be the problem and in the US, who knows? Can someone with some social anthropology (is that the right discipline?) bent tell us how private property became so sacrosanct? Yes, by the way, I own property, and also my wife and I are avid hikers.

I'm sure I didn't point out that some of us are not uptight, but I didn't mean everyone either.

One thing the US has done extremely well is make public some of the most dramatic landscapes in the world.
I fear that extremism, esp from the right, might reverse that. Hmmm, I wonder what we could sell Yosemite Valley for? Maybe the Disney Company would buy it for a theme park.

My first exposure to open land came in the early 80's in Wales. We were staying at a lovely 17th Century farmhouse when a man knocked on the door and I opened it. He asked the owner if the book he was holding was correct, that a drovers trail went thru the farmyard. Oh yes, says the owner, just walked around behind the house and thru the farmyard, and look for a track going up the hill. I was floored. The drovers trails were historically used to herd a drove of cattle and sheep, and now identified for recreational use.

I sympathize with Kate, it is sad to see access closed.

Anyway nancyprep I'm happy you found the link useful.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nancypreb:

I really appreciate the link Richard! ...

---

This is very interesting to know how other countries see this issue.

I had a thought about an issue that hasn't been addressed yet. That is "fear" of the unknown. If I welcome strangers on my land, I may make myself more vulnerable in ways I may or may not even imagine. So, I can protect myself by maintaining the position of "No", which seems safer. Then at least the risk from that is handled.

In other countries, the fear is around the potential destruction of ecology and effects on habitat. These fears are based on experience, and the restrictions are in place to "protect" the ecosystems.

My own naive position is that "strangers are just friends I haven't met" isn't realistic either. We all know that humans have degrees of self interest, and in many people self interest takes precedence over consideration of others, which is not altogether a negative position. Because if we don't take care of ourselves, who will? For us to expect that everyone will show consideration for our property is also naive.

The ideal is that we share what we have, in a way that doesn't jeopardize us or our loved ones. Sometimes that's an unpredictable call. We all have certain fears, and some of these have come from experiences, some of them from our imagination. Some of our fears are immobilizing to us, and some are immobilizing to others! This may be a simple case of (subconscious or conscious) fear of "what could happen" if they allow strangers anywhere on their property.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nancypreb:

I really appreciate the link Richard!...

---

Hi, y'all, Elizabeth here --

As a long-ago and long-time attender of Friends Meeting (Quakers), I have really appreciated the most recent drift toward balance. You know, this might actually work out. Or not. But at least it seemed to avoid trolling and flame war.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...7_18-08-39.png

Since our daughter's relocating to Italy more than fifteen years ago, I have made annual pilgrimages to a tiny island (shoe-shaped, only 10 miles long) off the northwest coast of France. I don't know anybody there, nobody knows me except for the earth. Gaia REALLY knows me, and I feel as "home" there as in Sebastopol, the only other place that gets me like this.

In that space of time, I have hiked the entire perimeter of the island, a daunting task if you consider that it's much like Norway's fjords -- hike north a little, then hike way inland to climb down to sea level, cross the stream, hike back up, and double back to across the chasm. But I did it, and also walked the north/south and east/west axes.

All these paths I walked were privately owned, but they were carefully signposted and well-maintained. The folks who live there know that their land is beautiful, and they want to make it accessible. However, the walkers in this remote location are probably different from the average. Maybe both owners and walkers are more like what we'd hope to be here in S'pol?

Belle Isle is sort of self-selecting, off in a backwater area and out in the ocean by a 45-minute ferry ride. I never hear anybody speaking English here except at the hostel. And the European travelers aren't exactly like this, for the most part:

https://wtnh.com/2014/09/17/video-li...ck-at-drivers/

But couldn't we aspire to this?

Elizabeth

Kudos to you for your decision re your neighbors, but once again I want to repeat that the mistakes were made when the property was subdivided (not these new neighbors' fault) and you should be pursuing (if you want to) disclosures there and whether they were above-board by the original owners. All the best!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by katelands:

Well. After a lot of thought, and much good advice here, ...

---

Thanks for this wonderful reply. I wanna go, where is this Island?
My wife and I have hiked in Ireland a fair amount, she is from Dublin with bunches of family there.
They have a wonderful trails system:
https://www.irishtrails.ie
We hiked the Kerry Way and it went thru farmland, past old stone farmsteads, along farm roads, old historic carriage ways, and it was wonderful, albiet a bit wet! The Wiclow Way was not as dramatic, but still fun. We have stories.

We also have a friend whose family owns land on the Arrow Peninsula, and the owners of land there developed a trail around the peninsula for public use. It all seems so refined and civilized.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

Hi, y'all, Elizabeth here --...

---