Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The freedom to roam, or everyman's right is the general public's right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise.
The right is sometimes called the right of public access to the wilderness or the right to roam.
I know the idea of private lands being used by the general public may
seem foreign to many Americans, it did to me, but apparently it's more
accepted in Europe where ancient, public pathways have been used
since the Stone Age... and have only 'recently' been privately owned.
(Sometimes by those considered outsiders.)
It mentions the right of way access denied by Ms. Quimby on her land and
I though, hm, Maine really is like a different country isn't it?
Quote:
“What has happened over the years,” Ms. Quimby said, “is that there were
very few landowners and they had a very permissive policy toward land
use as long as you stayed out of the way of the logging operation. So
people had this unrestricted access.”
“So now that the ownership is changing,” she said, “it’s becoming quite clear that this is private property.
And as a private property owner I don’t have to let anybody on it.”
That, she added, “is becoming the alternative to public land.”
When Ms. Quimby banned snowmobiling and hunting and all-terrain vehicles from the first two tracts she bought, which totaled more than 50,000 acres, the “ban Roxanne” cries were heard everywhere here. When she bought her third tract, 23,000 acres, earlier this fall, adjacent to the critical parcel in a state-brokered deal to expand Baxter park, opponents erupted again.
Sorry if this is common knowledge or a stupid question.
I do not live in Maine.... I live in Texas.
So you may imagine my confusion concerning all this.
By the way, I'm not so much interested in the accuracy of the 'Quimby Case' specifically but land use and right of way culture/laws and just the general permissiveness of neighbors all around in Maine.
Location: 3.5 sq mile island ant nest next to Canada
3,036 posts, read 5,887,316 times
Reputation: 2171
There are those that don't like Ms QUimby, for sure. She moved here from Mass. via California (late 60's?), started a business and when things got going good for her, she moved it out of state and made her fortune. Then with a huge bankroll, came back and started buying up land and declining access that generations were used to having. The whole RESTORE crowd seem to want eveyone out of Maine and turn the whole state into a national reserve. Save everything, except the people. They screwed up their states and now seem to know what is best for our state. It's a shame and ignorant IMO. But private landowners do have the right to use their land the way they see fit, legally. But when the DEP, et al say that (oh...I cold go on about this one!!) throwing fish entrails in the bay is poluton and close centuries old businesses, jobs get scarce, people barely get by, then someone saying they want to now restrict you more recreationally as well, and have the money to force their way on you...well, it kinda rubs you the wrong way.
There are those that don't like Ms QUimby, for sure. She moved here from Mass. via California (late 60's?), started a business and when things got going good for her, she moved it out of state and made her fortune. Then with a huge bankroll, came back and started buying up land and declining access that generations were used to having. The whole RESTORE crowd seem to want eveyone out of Maine and turn the whole state into a national reserve. Save everything, except the people. They screwed up their states and now seem to know what is best for our state. It's a shame and ignorant IMO. But private landowners do have the right to use their land the way they see fit, legally. But when the DEP, et al say that (oh...I cold go on about this one!!) throwing fish entrails in the bay is poluton and close centuries old businesses, jobs get scarce, people barely get by, then someone saying they want to now restrict you more recreationally as well, and have the money to force their way on you...well, it kinda rubs you the wrong way.
Sorry; I'm climbing down of the soapbox now.
Well stated.
I tried to rep you but I have gotta 'srpead it around first'.
The Maine Constitution specifies the right to "fish or fowl" on private land. That applies to fishing and hunting waterfowl on shorelands. It does not apply to hunting away from the shore or for hunting deer for example.
There is also the chance that if you are doing something on private land and get hurt, the land owners liability insurance would have to pay which means their premiums will go up. Some people make their living suing others.
There is also the chance that if you are doing something on private land and get hurt, the land owners liability insurance would have to pay which means their premiums will go up. Some people make their living suing others.
Maine has a law that protects land owners from being sued if they open up their land for recreational use. Hunting, snowmobiling, atv's etc. The risk is assumed by the user of the land not the land owner.
I do not live in Maine.... I live in Texas.
So you may imagine my confusion concerning all this.
When I first went to live in rural Hays County, Texas, several people warned me not to enter anyone's private property without permission or to expect a warning shot (true). I was told if my truck broke down to just wait on the side of the road and people would stop and offer to help (true), but not to approach a house, as they will come out and offer to help (true), or otherwise shoot.
Apparently, in Texas, it's legal to shoot to kill if you have a triple strand of barbwire around your property. I remember 4 or 5 years ago, the Texas state archeologist went onto a private property outside Dallas to study a native American burial mound that is there. The property owner rode out on his horse, pulled a 6 shooter and shot the archeologist in the leg. No problem.
In New England, people might yell at you, call the cops, or get a no trespass order if you keep it up, but usually won't plug you first. However, there is no common law right to ramble as in the UK. America is privately owned, it was mostly all divided up into little squares since after it was stolen from the native Americans and a lot of the new owners get snippy about it. That's why our state and national parks are so important to our freedom.
OK, so I'm putting myself in the landowner's shoes, as I expect I'll be standing there fairly soon anyway. I think it's great that sled trails and ATV trails criss-cross the land in more rural areas, as that just adds to the fun that everyone can have. And I'm keeping in mind NMLM's cautions regarding what he calls "rural cleansing".
At what point does this become harassment? For instance, DW mentioned to me that she'd want to keep sledders off any trails that crossed our land due to the "noise". She feels, and I wonder about, the fact that you may be awakened early in the day by revving engines coming close to the house. She worries that any livestock we raise may be chased or frightened by the "noise". After all, she says, aren't we moving up there for privacy, peace, and quiet?
While we still live in RI and don't really know the answers to these questions, we have been looking in areas where sled trails and ATV trails are common, and wouldn't want to change anything, or step on anyone else's "right" to recreation. As we will likely have just a small parcel of land (20 acres or so), we wonder if this would affect anything, either way? How have others on this board handled it? Has anyone here stopped the use of a trail crossing their property? If not, was the noise and disruption an issue for you? We would not be seasonal residents.
Maine has a law that protects land owners from being sued if they open up their land for recreational use. Hunting, snowmobiling, atv's etc. The risk is assumed by the user of the land not the land owner.
I wonder to what degree such a law really protects a landowner.
For example, what if someone is using another person's land for recreational purposes, and ends up falling into a concealed pit with pointed stakes at the bottom . . . that person would have no legal redress?
Before you say such a case is different, because the landowner intentionally created a dangerous situation on his property--what if the owner says he didn't build the trap and has no idea who did?
Would the the law just take the owner's word for it and go away, or will the owner be arrested and need to endure the agony of a court case and jail time?
OK, so I'm putting myself in the landowner's shoes, as I expect I'll be standing there fairly soon anyway. I think it's great that sled trails and ATV trails criss-cross the land in more rural areas, as that just adds to the fun that everyone can have. And I'm keeping in mind NMLM's cautions regarding what he calls "rural cleansing".
At what point does this become harassment? For instance, DW mentioned to me that she'd want to keep sledders off any trails that crossed our land due to the "noise". She feels, and I wonder about, the fact that you may be awakened early in the day by revving engines coming close to the house. She worries that any livestock we raise may be chased or frightened by the "noise". After all, she says, aren't we moving up there for privacy, peace, and quiet?
While we still live in RI and don't really know the answers to these questions, we have been looking in areas where sled trails and ATV trails are common, and wouldn't want to change anything, or step on anyone else's "right" to recreation. As we will likely have just a small parcel of land (20 acres or so), we wonder if this would affect anything, either way? How have others on this board handled it? Has anyone here stopped the use of a trail crossing their property? If not, was the noise and disruption an issue for you? We would not be seasonal residents.
It is my observation that generally people respect private land, if they know it is private.
On the other hand, it is hospitable to give permission to your neighbors to access your land so they too can enjoy it.
There are properties where the sled trails cross. The land-owners give them permission. Sled trails do not cross every tract of land in Maine. When I was shopping for land, I did look at some that had trails and many that did not. My land [150 acres] has no sled trails on it.
I have posted my land 'No hunting without owner's permission', and two neighbors have approached me to ask to hunt here, I have gladly given both of them my permission.
We have a number of families in our township, who all bought horses two years ago. It seems that these families only own enough land for a bit of pasture, but nowhere to ride their horses. So they ended up riding on the pavement.
I approached two of the families and gave them permission to ride their horses one of my access trails [about a mile of trail].
Just yesterday after I had been out by my river frontage surveying some wildlife trails down there, I came up to the pavement and saw two of the horse-riders. When I spoke with them, they did not know where they could go on their horses to access the river. So I invited them to use a another trail through my land that leads to the river.
I think that most people respect private land, and it is friendly to let your neighbors enjoy your land too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's just a link to a New York Times article on their site!
