I ran across these two articles on the closing of hiking trails. These trails had been used by their respective community's for years. Along comes a person with some dollar bills, and suddenly they think they can restrict others from their "right to roam".
Let me ask? Who is more anti-social? The person who buys property and then restricts a person (who had been using the trail for years) from having access to it? Or the person who ignores the wishes of an anti-social, private property owner?
Established trails should be protected! Some rights go beyond a person's ability to "have it all to themselves".