Logged in as: Anonymous Search | Active Topics |

4 Pages <1234>
Keep Out or Come On In? Options
Cecil Hayduke
#21 Posted : Sunday, May 04, 2008 1:57:12 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494
Ummm, have any of you actually read Abbey?  All of this concern about the sactity of property rights and so little about the article's focus on the degradation of the rural experience and the establishment of individual private domains. 

Uncle Ed was an anarchist through and through and as noted, didn't give a fuck about the "property rights" of sign owners.
martingr
#22 Posted : Sunday, May 04, 2008 4:56:16 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

 Wow, this started some comments, Raven sorry about your dog, but asking strangers for funds to pay for vet bill is for me over the line, maybe try asking the Vet. to accept payments from you till bill is paid. Accidents do happen inspite of how carefull we maybe, no one is to fault, so use this information to raise your level of awareness to other possible hazzards? I guess if we split fine hairs we are really just stewards of the land we hold title to, but while I'm the steward I have absolute say on who can or cannot walk my land, hunt, fish, ect you are guest and have been generious been granted to visit, willful distruction of private property for any reason will find you arrested. We also have people who post small plots but want to roam at will on yours, I don't allow them here, but will take the opportunty to teach them that allowing access to  their land can be benefit them protection of their private property when they aren't there to protect it.

                                                             Gary

Lobo
#23 Posted : Sunday, May 04, 2008 6:37:58 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

A number of thoughts come to mind on this question:

1- Whatever I am doing on my property is my business, not yours.

2- When did you last pay my taxes or mortgage on the land you want to violate?

3- Who are you going to sue when you trip and fall and break your leg because you wore the wrong shoes or your walking stick broke?

4- Why cant you give me tyhe respect that you yourself would demand?

5- Distruction of personal property (ie: the ugly signs) is a crime and you could go to jail.

6- The signs are made loud and "ugly" so people will see them.

People generally buy isolated plots of land so they can get away from rude nosey people. Ogften all they want is peace and quiet. I allow hunters to use some of my land..that is up to the first time they dont clean up behind thamselves especially the empty shot gun shells. Cattle will eat them and die because they cut their stomachs to ribbons. So up go the "Keep Out" and "No Trespassing signs"

If you want to go walking badly, try a national park or forest or historical area, you pay a share of the taxes for those places. Those are the places open to the general public, not the places known as Private Property.

Of course I could use your argument and go walking around your home, walk into the house and catch you and your wife in a " wanted" moment, and using your argument, you shouldnt be upset, after all the door and its lock are ugly!

John Edward Mercier
#24 Posted : Sunday, May 04, 2008 10:14:35 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494
Cecil Hayduke wrote:
Ummm, have any of you actually read Abbey?  All of this concern about the sactity of property rights and so little about the article's focus on the degradation of the rural experience and the establishment of individual private domains. 

Uncle Ed was an anarchist through and through and as noted, didn't give a fuck about the "property rights" of sign owners.


 

An anarchist is self-governed... and though they don't believe in the 'law', are usually the first to run to it for protection. As for rural experience... we've been here for generations. And prior to our being here the natives had quite a tradition of territorial behavior.

 

Cecil Hayduke
#25 Posted : Monday, May 05, 2008 3:40:28 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494
John Edward Mercier wrote:
Cecil Hayduke wrote:
Ummm, have any of you actually read Abbey?  All of this concern about the sactity of property rights and so little about the article's focus on the degradation of the rural experience and the establishment of individual private domains. 

Uncle Ed was an anarchist through and through and as noted, didn't give a fuck about the "property rights" of sign owners.


 

An anarchist is self-governed... and though they don't believe in the 'law', are usually the first to run to it for protection. As for rural experience... we've been here for generations. And prior to our being here the natives had quite a tradition of territorial behavior.

 

John;

While I'm sure you are an expert on many other things, I question your knowledge of anarchist theory.  Anarchists actually have no problem with communal organization and aren't strictly "self-governed" as you put it.  Additionally, I'd love to see a more specific citation supporting your assertion that "[anarchists] are the first to run to [the law] for protection."  What historical evidence are you referring to -- the Spanish Civil War. the Russian Revolution...?  I'm sure you weren't just spouting off.  Along the same lines, which natives in your area are you referring to?  Different native cultures had different attitudes toward land "ownership."  I'm sure you had something more specific in line.  E

Eagerly awaiting your learned dissertation,

Cecil
John Edward Mercier
#26 Posted : Monday, May 05, 2008 6:21:12 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Self-governing and communal organization is not disassociative in nature. Self-governed is to enter obligation at one's will.

Self-described anarchists are many... and few are willing to live in true anarchy. Most I've conversed through forums with are under the impression that some societal imposed rules are OK. Imposed rules are not a part of anarchy.

So in this example, the societal imposed rule against trespass is wrong...  but if said property owner released the hounds on them, or took a more personalized approach... then the societal imposed rules against assualt and battery are OK.

Territorial behavior has primitive foundations throughout the animal kingdom... and is thus inherent. It would be interesting to hear of which native culture did not have territorial behavior, since I've never heard of any.

 

 

 

 

Cecil Hayduke
#27 Posted : Monday, May 05, 2008 10:19:03 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494
I was right!  You ARE an expert on many things.  However, without some kind of citation beyond "[m]ost I've conversed with..." we may be forced to believe that your expertise resides mostly within anecdotal experiences such as that.  In fact, anarchism implies living within an ordered community just without RULERS not without rules.  Further, the "anarchy" that you refer to is a state of chaos and has nothing to do with anarchism, which is the political philosophy that anarchists subscribe to and actually comes from the greek word anarkos which means "order.

I guess even internet experts can learn something new every once in a while.

p.s.  you never actually addressed my first point, which was that the great Edward Abbey felt that property rights are far less important than the state of wilderness land or merely rural land which should be free from the burdens imposed by property-obsessed libertarians or other similarly capitalist motivations.
Cecil Hayduke
#28 Posted : Monday, May 05, 2008 11:39:05 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494
Oh yeah, also please tell me which anarchists you were referring to that "were the first to run to the cops."  I'm gonna see about kicking them out of the club.
scott
#29 Posted : Monday, May 05, 2008 11:56:41 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Edward Abbey- "Of course I litter the public highway. Every chance I get. After all, it's not the beer cans that are ugly; it's the highway that is ugly."

Seems Eddy had something in common with the author of  "I'm so righteous, I rip down signs when I'm drunk and nobody is watching."

Most anarchists live alternative lifestyles also. 

oldjackbob
#30 Posted : Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:02:05 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494
Sorry Cecil, this is from Merriam-Webster --
 
Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler
Date: 1539

But hey, like you said, "I guess even internet experts can learn something new every once in a while".
 
 
 
 
Cecil Hayduke
#31 Posted : Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:19:08 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494
oldjackbob wrote:
Sorry Cecil, this is from Merriam-Webster --
 
Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler
Date: 1539

But hey, like you said, "I guess even internet experts can learn something new every once in a while".

Sometimes they're just stoned.  Sorry.
 
 
 
 

John Edward Mercier
#32 Posted : Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:16:43 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Anarchy does not imply chaos... though it is a possible outcome. The same way that the square root of 4 can be 2 or -2. Anarchy may be chaotic or ordered. It simply implies that no ruler above the individual exists (self-governed).

All of us are born anarchists (watch any two year old)... its the need for security that drives us to statism. Even someone that declares themself an anarchist operates under this mode.

The person removing the signs would state they are an anarchist, but if you attempted to kill them with a rock... would turn statist suggesting that some inherent human right to life or underlying natural law exists. When in fact neither is true.

 

Brad
#33 Posted : Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:35:48 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

This thread seems to be taking a very “theoretical” turn as if what the author is talking about does not and could not exist in the real world.  England, Scotland, and Wales all have at least partially adopted the rights of passage that the author is talking about.  I have had the pleasure of going on a number of walking trips in England and can attest to the joy of walking more or less unencumbered across the countryside.

Like here the laws vary locally but there is a huge network of historic footpaths for which the rite of passage has been maintained.  I have walked through farm yards on trails that passed between the house and the barn.  Curtsey and the law require that you do not linger; and that you close gates, but you may pass.  The law also requires that the gates not be locked unless a way to get around, over, or through them is provided

 There has been a movement to protect and expand these rights that goes back at least to the 1930’s and is still very much alive today.  Trespass day (the anniversary of the day in 1932 when 500 working class “ramblers” challenged and ultimately defeated the trespass laws) is still celebrated by thousands of walkers.  A national trail called Trespass Trail has just been opened in its honor.

In addition to the footpaths there is also the right walk over land that meets certain definitions even in the absence of trails or paths.  This right exists based on the type of the land, not how or by whom it is owned.  They are currently campaigning to include all coastal land in the definition.  The uncultivated rural land that the author describes would certainly meet the definition of land that one could walk on with little or no restriction. 

Law and history are different here but this is a real world model of how these laws could be changed.  Anarchy is not required.  A little civil disobedience might be.

 

 

Talos321
#34 Posted : Wednesday, May 07, 2008 7:00:37 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494
   It would be nice to do unencumbered walking. However, witnessing how people respect other people's things makes me question if something like this could be done. Heck I've witnessed myself  on nature trials open to the public people throwing trash into the river even when a trash bin is located within 10ft, carving names into picnic tables, unleashing their animal and having it kill wildlife, stealing vegetation
  Most rural landowners are quite friendly (at least this area) if you talk with them and ask nicely if you may pass with the stipulation that if I get bitten by a snake, fall to my death, break a leg it is my dime. I accept that. I take a lot of nature pictures and the land holder sometimes will even tell me where to get some excellent pictures on their property. Most know me by name now and even pet my dog or cat whom is always leashed. (yes both my cat and dog are leash trained)
  Most of their concerns are destruction of their property such as illegal trash dumping or  people hunting illegally, ATVs. The added bonus was that I promise the owners that if I see anything suspicious that I would call the cops for them or let them know so, in effect I'm helping to safeguard their area which they do appreciate. The camera came in handy once when I spotted a guy throwing old tube televisions on one of the properties I walk.

 To the walker that destroyed other people's property while intoxicated. I hope you do get arrested. There are other ways to do this other than your actions. Offer to make some signs that look better out of wood or something like that  Destroying the owners property does nothing to encourage them to let people pass.
 
   The guy with the Turkeys, I can relate even though I do not own a lot of acreage (4). I still do raise chickens and my neighbors dog had torn a hole in their fence and attacked one. I handled it by taking a can of florescent pink spray paint and writing, "Chicken Killer" on it's side and kicked it in the rump. That dog was never seen without a leash again.  If it would've shown up again I would've handled the same way you did.
----
The Raven person sounds like a scam artist. I would be extremely wary of sending this person money over paypal.
  If this person is legit all I can say is suck it up accidents do happen as your dog could have been impaled by a stick in the ground just as easily. Learn from it and maybe place some rocks around border stake and plant some flowers. I really don't like people that try to find a lawsuit over minor niggles.
 I have relatives that  scream lawsuit every time I see them and are always looking for one. I will not let them come onto my property for fear that I'll have to run behind them with a cushion in case they fall over a pebble and try to sue me too! I really don't even like to talk to them as words can be lawsuit material too. I'm really annoyed by lawsuits being too easy in this country.

 I've never met a vet that will not let you get a payment plan. Heck some of the local vets here will give you a discount if you help them out on such things as rabies clinics and things like this. Talk to  them and explain your burden and most will work with you.




John Edward Mercier
#35 Posted : Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:50:30 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

In rural New England, the ability to roam exists... within reason and some minor restrictions.

The 'uncultivated' land you are seeing is in reality someone's tree farm or in some cases a wildlife reserve. The landowner of the tree farm may be hesitant due to squatting and the possibility of set fires, trash, etc. The wilderness reserve whether public or private may preclude a formated pathway, but seldom preclude walkers except for the same fears as tree farmers.

The reality is a person on foot, not bedding down for some period of time, has a very limited range of activity (maybe a half to a dozen miles before returning).

martingr
#36 Posted : Thursday, May 08, 2008 2:13:59 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

 In an ideal world people would be kind to one another, respect each other and not trespass without asking. Down at my mother's house there is a white birch tree, in the 1930's when my grandparents ran a boarding house, one of the boarders went for a walk and ended up at this house which wasn't lived in during the summer, only the winter. Anyways they peeled the paper off of this birch, a band about six inchs wide. They did not mean any harm they just didn't know that this peeling scars the tree, today 75 years later there is still this ugly black scar. You can go to any public camp ground where white birch grows and see where people have peeled the paper off of these trees or worst yet set the paper afire. In the Adirondack park on state land, any live trees, brush ect. that is cut or damaged results in your arrest, now if the state can see fit to protect the natural resources on our land why should it be any different in the stewardship of my land to protect it?  

                                              Gary

HockeyFan
#37 Posted : Friday, May 09, 2008 8:58:20 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

It boils down to the respect for others and their rights.  The problem here is that there are too many people now, that lack this respect.  So, unfortunately, there has to be laws to enforce something that should be second nature to everyone.

 


Earth Home Project:
www.freewebs.com/stocktonunderground

 

Mike in McMurdo
#38 Posted : Saturday, May 10, 2008 5:07:57 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Wow, walk away from the forums for two weeks and look what I missed.

I may have missed this above, but I have another viewpoint. Most of the above works fine if you are truly rural. You aren't likely to get too many walkers anyway. Today, as the big tracks get divided into 1 2 3 or 5 acre small tracks, urbanization is beginning to creep where it never used to.

Here in coastal california, we have a large homeless population, that seems to find large pieces of land make a good places to camp. If all someone wanted to do was walk across the property, maybe, but that is not always the case. Camps become garbage dumps.

Meth labs, pot farms etc all seem to do better when people sneak clandestinely onto private land.as well. Piles of toxic debris and garbage are not uncommon anymore in the remotest of places.

These days I'd say, walk the roads and established trails in parks and leave the private property be.

Mike

wsmith
#39 Posted : Saturday, May 10, 2008 10:13:03 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494
I have been coming to MotherEarthNews.com for some time now, but have just now (because of this thread) made an account.  Some may agree to what I have to say, some may not, and some may think "what is this guy on?!"

My wife and I live on 34 acres of mostly scrub brush land. We have our goats, our garden, our livestock dogs, and are 100% organic in everything we do on our land. Not certified yet because it costs so much to get it.

Our thoughts, yes even the wife agrees, is this...  We have to keep our land organic, keep our goats, chickens, and ducks safe, and have a nice place for our granddaughter, that lives with us, to grow up. BTW, we live in South Carolina.

The law here is, if someone gets hurt on your property, it's YOUR fault, and you WILL pay one way or the other...  That right there is enough for us to say NO to anyone coming on our property... But that's not the reason for our decision...

The main reasons are that we are organic. I don't want your oil leaks from your 4-wheeler on my land. I don't want your shotgun shells and rifle casings killing my goats. I don't want to walk down to the lower part of the land and see the wrapper from your whopper up in a bush that you left (yes that happened). I don't want your bullets going through my house killing me or my family (the house across the street has 2 rifle holes in it from drunk hunters who were tresspassing and hunting only 200 FEET from that house)... See where this is going?

I agree with the person that shot the dogs. I would and WILL do the same to protect my livestock (and by federal law have that right. Can even shoot "deadly force" HUMANS on the farm that threaten them) (I can quote that law if needed though I'm sure most farmers know it)... TODAY 5/11/2008 at 12:26 est ***I have just been informed by my wife's boss, A South Carolina Judge, that even though this law exists, state law would override it and you should never use deadly force unless the trespasser is attacking you or your family (humans), and it would be a miracle if you weren't sentenced to prison time for using deadly force to protect livestock. However, the law even in SC protects you from prosecution when another animal harming livestock is concerned. Also, the owner of the dog MUST pay for the animal attacked, or any veterinary (spelling) costs if animal was not killed.***

Having said all that!  We have had people come up to our house and ask if they could go take some pictures out on the land... of course you can! I'll even tell you where you have a 90% chance of getting deer on film! EVERY DAY you have that chance...  At the same time, we have had people come up and ask for permission to hunt... I had no idea who they were, and they had 4-wheelers, so the answer was no automatically.

We have those yellow signs all the way around our land. Why? because we were TOLD to put them up by the local police...  Why did they say that? because now, the second I see you on the land, you're toast... instant arrest, no excuses, no defenses, you're gone... We didn't want to put them up, and at first used wood and painted them ourselves. They were ripped down... These are the thin plastic wrap kind that go all the way around the tree... For some reason they scare the people more? NONE of these have been torn down in 2 years now.

In closing... If you come to the house and ask to go take pictures, you WILL get permission as long as you're not on a vehicle...  However... if you don't ask, and we catch you, first we will call the police... If you get aggressive, well, I have rifles and pistols, and I don't miss. I will protect my family and farm at ANY cost. That might sound threatening, it might sound rude... It's not meant as either... It's just fact.

added 5/11/08...  My wife has asked that I add that we do NOT harm wildlife (foxes, opossum, coyotes) that attack our chickens... This is a natural process, and we respect nature... We've had our chickens wiped out and had to start over, and all I did was ran the fox off (which btw didn't CARE that I was walking toward him/her until I got too close)... But that's another subject.
Scotmcmc
#40 Posted : Monday, May 12, 2008 5:22:34 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494
Allan -

I mentioned your article to a member of my congregation. He told of a time, as a youth, when he and a friend were out walking and came up to the top of a hill overlooking the Mississippi river. He was awed by its beauty, suddenly a man came up and said, "What are you kids doing here? This is private property." then he said to me, "No one should have the right to keep something so beautiful all to themselves."

Rock on mi amigo.

Scot
Users browsing this topic
Anonymous
4 Pages <1234>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.





Subscribe Today - Pay Now & Save 66% Off the Cover Price

First Name: *
Last Name: *
Address: *
City: *
State/Province: *
Zip/Postal Code:*
Country:
Email:*
(* indicates a required item)
Canadian subs: 1 year, (includes postage & GST). Foreign subs: 1 year, . U.S. funds.
Canadian Subscribers - Click Here
Non US and Canadian Subscribers - Click Here

Lighten the Strain on the Earth and Your Budget

MOTHER EARTH NEWS is the guide to living — as one reader stated — “with little money and abundant happiness.” Every issue is an invaluable guide to leading a more sustainable life, covering ideas from fighting rising energy costs and protecting the environment to avoiding unnecessary spending on processed food. You’ll find tips for slashing heating bills; growing fresh, natural produce at home; and more. MOTHER EARTH NEWS helps you cut costs without sacrificing modern luxuries.

At MOTHER EARTH NEWS, we are dedicated to conserving our planet’s natural resources while helping you conserve your financial resources. That’s why we want you to save money and trees by subscribing through our earth-friendly automatic renewal savings plan. By paying with a credit card, you save an additional $5 and get 6 issues of MOTHER EARTH NEWS for only $12.00 (USA only).

You may also use the Bill Me option and pay $17.00 for 6 issues.