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".
http://www.redding.com/news/2008/jan/08/landowner-closes-trails/
http://www.wickedlocal.com/capecod/homepage/x101656440/No-trespassing-signs-irk-beach-walkers
An ongoing journal of building an "off-the-grid" solar homestead, life, boring tedious stuff, knee-jerk eco-socialist opinion, work (as little as possible) and family---from the edge of the wilderness (where the Sierra meets the Cascades).
No comments:
Post a Comment