The title is the question.
This post is the huh?
It’s a Swedish term for the right to cross other people’s property.
This said, I dunno.
In some countries it’s acceptable for someone to cross private property, or even camp overnight on it. As long as you don’t interfere with the owner’s privacy and you’re considerate of the person and his property (e.g., you’re not too loud, don’t leave a mess, etc.) it’s all good.
Try that here, and you’re liable to be shot! (Cue a skinny guy in a singlet and carrying a shotgun yelling, ‘Git off mah layand!’)
Laws vary from state to state. Under Wisconsin statute, trespass occurs in any one of the four ways. The law says a trespasser is one of the following:
1) Someone who enters any enclosed or cultivated land belonging to another person with the intent to catch or kill any birds, animals or fish on the land, or to gather any products of the soil without the express or implied consent of the owner or occupant to engage in those activities.
2) Someone who enters or remains on any of another person’s land after having been notified by the owner or occupant not to enter or remain on the premises.
3) Someone who hunts, shoots, fishes, or gathers any product of the soil on another person’s property, or enters the premises with the intent to do one of those things, after having been notified by the owner or occupant not to do them.
4) Someone who enters enclosed or cultivated land with any vehicle without the consent or the owner or occupant.
Thanks. Sounds like a good idea. On bike rides as a youngster I was never quite sure if some farmer was about to fill my ass with lead pellets, or whether he was entitled to do so, just for my being on his land.
Near where I live there’s a care home for mentally disabled. It’s carpark has two exits which make it an ideal shortcut between my street and the park. They don’t seem to mind people using it.
The legal concept behind Wisconsin’s statute is true in most states: in general, unless there are “No trespassing” signs posted on someone’s property, you are not trespassing unless you are asked by the owner to leave but you remain or return. Some states, like North Dakota, are even more liberal — you may hunt on another’s land unless there are “No hunting” signs posted.
So, yes, we do generally have “allemansrecht” in the U.S.
The Americans Against Allemansrecht Association is a powerful lobbying group in the U.S.
In California, the Pacific Coast beach (up to the high tide mark) is supposed to be open to the public and there have been numerous lawsuits by various groups to ensure that people who own beachside property allow access to it. David Geffen was the subject of some very lengthy litigation involving going past his house to the beach and he finally gave in. Geffen constructed a concrete walkway through his property with high walls and no windows. I think he has security cameras also.
This is the case in Britain. In many areas, private property is crossed by paths that are considered public rights of way. When i lived in Yorkshire and in the Lakes District, many of the walks i did involved public pathways that crossed over private land.
There are rules to using the public paths in Britain. As Johnny L.A. says, you’re not allowed to leave a mess. Also, if i remember the rules correctly, you’re also not supposed to stray from the marked pathway. For example, if the path goes along one edge of a field, you’re not allowed to go wandering all over the field. Also, i don’t think you’re allowed to camp on private land without the owner’s express permission.
I believe that landowners also have some responsibility. For example, you’re not supposed to “discourage” people from using the pathway through your land by placing a large bull in the paddock.
According to this site, which describes England’s Coast-to-Coast Walk:
It seems, also, that Britain recently passed a new Countryside Rights of Way Act, which will actually open up more private land to public right of way. The rights, responsibilities, and liabilities of land owners and managers are detailed here, where it says:
Actually, it also seems that my earlier comments about having to stay on marked pathways no longer apply since the passing of the CROW Act. From here:
So, it looks like people can go just about anywhere now. Farmers still have to be careful about running the bulls (:)) and such on land that is open to the public:
This site has a list of restricted activities, things that you’re not allowed to do on public access land. Interstingly, camping or overnight stays do not seem to be prohibited, so i may have to revise that part of my earlier understanding also.
It also seems that the new Act, which was passed in 2000 and comes into full effect this year, applies a bit differently to Scotland than it does to England and Wales.
Saw something on this the other day. Part of the problem in CA is the definition of the high tide mark. The law specifies “mean high tide line”, which is very difficult to determine. Several coastal states allow public access up to a mark defined by the start of vegetation - this may simply be traditional interpretation of a “mean high tide” law, which would technically say that public access ended somewhere part way up the beach.
Here, any open street or road connecting to any public street or road is presumed to be open to the public. Since all beacbes are deemed public property, any path to the beach is also deemed public.
Doesn’t one also have a right to poop in any availablr toilet?
Dutch term, actually. In Swedish it’s Allemansrätt.
It’s basically the right of public access to the wilderness. The concept is common between Nordic countries Sweden, Norway and Finland and gives everybody the right to cross any land or water not in the immediate vicinity of housing, and also the right to camp there without harming anything. Obvious exceptions derive from common sense; you cannot walk through somebody’s grain field, for example. Most importantly using motor vehicles harming trees and hunting without landowners permission are forbidden. More info at http://www.allemansratten.se/ note that there are some minor differences between the three countries’ laws.
Every man’s right comes from the fact that Northern Europe is mostly forest, with some marshes, rocky areas and tundra in the very north, in any case majorly non-cultivated land. Since most of these forests are privately owned, either by individuals or sometimes companies, this means that there are vast areas in a very little use, and thus the custom of free passing arose.
In square dancing, you have both Allemansrecht and Allemansleft. 
There’s a similar law in France, which happens to be the oldest law still regularily enforced (it dates back to the early 1500s).
The famous (personnally I would say infamous, but it’s another story) former actress Brigitte Bardot is one of the people who had her property’s wall demolished by court order so that people could access to the seashore.
However, there isn’t any Allemanrecht here, apart from this.
And I don’t think the USA qualify, either (someone mentionned that in most states you could enter in someone’s property as long as you aren’t told otherwise or warned), since I believe (but I could be mistaken…Any scandinavian poster???) that this principle implies that the owner can’t prevent you from entering his property and can’t tell you to leave.
I should first read all the posts. Though not being scandinavian, ** eurograff ** had already answered…
Hm, so if I as the mysterious Garboesque star bought a property and enclosed all except for a 10 foot wide/3 meter wide path from road to beach along one edge in a 12 foot tall/4 meter tall stone wall I dont have to worry because there is an area left specifically for people to pass across my property?
Depends whether you count Finland as being part of Scandinavia (there’s great ambiguity!).
It’s correct that your right to be at someone else’s land doesn’t cease even if that person specially asks you to go away. That kind of request simply has no power (and thankfully Europe is free of gun-toting nuts, too). You can similarly cross fences, go through gates et cetera. There’s theoretical possibility that somebody could put an impassable fence on their lands thus preventing access to an allmansrätt-allowed area, but such measures are very rare and if that happened, it would probably be accepted, since there’s no shortage of free-to-pass land. In some areas allemansrätt is a regular subject of minor disputes, but these problems are most often solved by applying a little common sense, very appropriately since that’s the basis of this whole right.
That’s pretty much the way it works. You have to provide access to the beach. You don’t have to make it look nice. However, if the accessway is incedibly ugly, zoning laws could prevent you from putting up some sort of monstrosity that would annoy all the neighbors or make the area look unattractive.