Posted by Robert Dilley on December 09, 2004 at 17:55:07 from 65.39.13.79 user rdilley.
In Reply to: Re: not ALL land is owned by somebody in the USA posted by Laurence Monkhouse on December 09, 2004 at 15:53:09:
In Ontario it was long the case that all land 66 ft (slightly over 20 m) from navigable water was considered a "Road Allowance" (or, often "Chain Allowance"). No building or fencing to obstruct passage was allowed. I was told that the original purpose was to allow shipwrecked sailors to reach shore anywhere without being chased off by defensive landowners, but I can't confirm this.
Several years ago the Provincial government allowed municipalities to close and sell off these road allowances (maybe no-one was getting shipwrecked any more) though long before that the law was being ignored on a widespread basis. So, whereas you used (in theory) to be able to walk unchallenged along the shoreline of any sizeable lake or river, that is no longer the case (unless you are confident the road allowance has not been closed and are willing to argue the case with aggressive property owners along the way).
It also used to be the case that comemrcial developers of shoreline property had to provide so much public access to the shore for every length of private development (naturally, they invariably chose the swampiest or rockiest areas to set aside for the public). In a further move in favour of property developers, municipalities were allowed to take a cash payment in lieu of this access. I need hardly say which option cash-strapped local authorities preferred. The result is that huge stretches of the Great Lakes are effectively alienated from the general public.
One of the pleasant things about the English Lake District is that so much of the lakeshores are open to the public. Try to access Lake Superior east of Thunder Bay and you will find fiercely-worded PRIVATE PROPERTY and KEEP OUT signs, and even VIDEO CAMERA MONITORING until you find a little park where you have to walk across the railraod tracks to get to a tiny beach (where the water is invariably freezing -- but that's what happens when you have a lake bigger than Scotland).
Peter H's comments about common land in the Lake District are quite correct (how many people have said that to you, Peter?) I had made a similar posting some years ago when the subject of access came up before. Most people even in the UK think that "common land" means it belongs to everyone and that they can therefore do what they like on it. It is not like Crown Land in Canada or Public Domain Land in the US but all belongs to someone and its use is restricted to those who have legal common rights to it. I wrote my PhD thesis on the common lands of Cumberland, the former county that covered the northern and western half of the Lake District, and still occasionally get queries from the UK about rights. When I lived there, no-one was likely to object to your casually camping on common land as you weren't likely to be doing serious damage to anyone's common rights (as long as you didn't imitate the Jolly Swagman and snaffle a jumbuck for your tucker bag) and I don't think it would have occurred to AR that the Ss and As shouldn't camp anywhere on the fells. What the situation is now, I do not know.