# Everyman's right



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Given the topic of stream access and other issues of access to outdoor land, should we have a discussion on the concept of "everyman's right" (_"allemannsrett"_ in Norway, _"right to roam_" in England)?


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Does anyone here know what the "everyman's right" means?


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Evidently not


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Google it. Interesting.


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

I lived in Sweden for a year and it is a cherished institution there. It worked great, but the per capita douche-bag ratio is somewhat lower there as well. 

BTW, Massmanute, you are probably on some State of Utah commy watch-list for putting such a thing on the internet.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Interesting concept. Can you imagine how many people would freak out if this were instituted?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

With as much public land as there is in Utah. Why would this appeal to anyone here?

Some people just hate privacy I guess. 

Now in a place like UK I can see maybe a need to provide public access to the countryside. But not here.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Reading about the various styles of this, it looks like it's just about walking across the land. Usually I'm pretty fanatical about people having the right to access private land in order to use public land or resources but "everyman's right" doesn't really have bearing on the stream access issue because you're talking about using the land, not just passing through. When it comes to hunting I wouldn't have faith in someone's restraint when it comes to trying to cross several acres of private land on foot with a rifle and a firearm.

Iron Bear is right, with as much public land as there is in this state there isn't really any need for the right to just simply pass through private land.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

It might depend on the country, but at least in Sweden Everyman's right is more than just strolling across a property. Of course, it doesn't mean "Do whatever you want" either.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

Most of the public land in Utah is salt flats sand dunes and other desert. The amount of forested public land is much lower than the land-grabbers in the state legislature portray.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

How about this then. In Utah there are 36,000 acres of public land that are inaccessible because they are fully landlocked by private lands. Another 161,000 are inaccessible because the public cannot cross corners to get to it. (http://www.hcn.org/issues/45.21/public-land-locked-up)

Everyman's right would open most of that public land to be accessible by the public.

In Utah we have a kind of reverse everyman's right because I believe you can't even set one foot on private land without written permission, even if the land is not posted.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

massmanute said:


> In Utah we have a kind of reverse everyman's right because I believe you can't even set one foot on private land without written permission, even if the land is not posted.


Actually, this is not true. Here's a simple explanation:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/law/trespass.php

Utah code on the matter:

23-20-14. Definitions -- Posted property -- Hunting by permission -- Entry on private land while hunting or fishing -- Violations -- Penalty -- Prohibitions inapplicable to officers. 
(1)	As used in this section:
(a)	"Cultivated land" means land that is readily identifiable as:
(i)	land whose soil is loosened or broken up for the raising of crops;
(ii)	land used for the raising of crops; or
(iii)	pasturage which is artificially irrigated.
(b)	"Division" means the Division of Wildlife Resources.
(c)	"Permission" means written authorization from the owner or person in charge to enter upon private land that is either cultivated or properly posted, and shall include:
(i)	the signature of the owner or person in charge;
(ii)	the name of the person being given permission;
(iii)	the appropriate dates; and
(iv)	a general description of the property.
(d)	"Properly posted" means that signs prohibiting trespass or bright yellow, bright orange, or fluorescent paint are clearly displayed:
(i)	at all corners, fishing streams crossing property lines, roads, gates, and rights-of-way entering the land; or
(ii)	in a manner that would reasonably be expected to be seen by a person in the area.
(2)	
*(a)	While taking wildlife or engaging in wildlife related activities, a person may not:
(i)	without permission, enter upon privately owned land that is cultivated or properly posted;*
(ii)	enter or remain on privately owned land if the person has notice to not enter or remain on the privately owned land; or
(iii)	obstruct any entrance or exit to private property.
*(b)	A person has notice to not enter or remain on privately owned land if:
(i)	the person is directed to not enter or remain on the land by:
(A)	the owner of the land;
(B)	the owner's employee; or
(C)	a person with apparent authority to act for the owner; or
(ii)	the land is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner that a reasonable person would recognize as intended to exclude intruders.*

For example, almost all the undeveloped land owned by the LDS church is not posted and is huntable, though they have asked that you not drive vehicles of any kind into their parcels.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

One problem with that in the good old USA is our lawsuit happy society.

Someone gets hurt on the private property and the lawyers will start to circle.

Liability is a big issue.


----------



## torowy (Jun 19, 2008)

If it isn't posted or cultivated, you can go on private property all you want.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Will the government reserve the ability to restrict access? Like on WMA's


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

torowy said:


> If it isn't posted or cultivated, you can go on private property all you want.


Until asked to leave.

"In Utah, trespassing is a criminal offense. Though many people characterize it as not being that serious, a conviction will result in a criminal record, not to mention fines and potential jail time. This is a relatively common charge but not one that should be taken lightly."

Quoted from "Utah Criminal Defense Attorney"


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

AND if the fence around the property is designed to keep humans out. The big long six foot tall fence along Lake Fork Rd. for example....that guy spent a lot of money to keep people out.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Everyman's right, and right to roam are rooted in the same thousand year old common law that our public trust doctrine came from. The king's forest,.....our deer.....I speak with people in England and Norway all the time. In England you can not go just anywhere, you are restricted to paths, roads and trails that have been open to the public for hundreds of years. This includes camping on private property in many places as well. As a land owner you can not block peoples access across these rights of way. In Scandinavian countries it can be even more open, but this depends on the country. 

In contrast here, we have a large population of people that do not respect public or private property, and private land owners that are all too willing to block federal, state, and county public right of ways. You always hear about the big bad federal government closing down RS2477 right of ways, but if you get out the maps, and do your homework you will find that most RS2477 claims should be against private property owners blocking public right of way access to public property. When you break it down into miles of blocked right of ways that actually restrict public access to public property here in Utah, it's about 70/30 private blockages to federal blockages. But then again, that's not the narrative that the give us your lands state grifters want you to hear.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

If it is a "right of way" then it should not be blocked. 

However if there is a right of way through private land to get access to public land, who has the responsibility to maintain the right of way? The feds do not like to maintain roads, and if the private landowner maintains the right of way then they should get compensated for maintaining the road. 

How about if the landowner could charge a toll?

Just a couple of other things to think about.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bowgy said:


> If it is a "right of way" then it should not be blocked.
> 
> However if there is a right of way through private land to get access to public land, who has the responsibility to maintain the right of way? The feds do not like to maintain roads, and if the private landowner maintains the right of way then they should get compensated for maintaining the road.
> 
> ...


Typically the right of ways through private to public are county right of ways, so some are maintained on a county level. There is no responsibility to maintain the right of way, unless said county wants to. Which is the funny thing about a lot of RS2477 claims. They claimed by the county, but the county let the routes go away decades ago when they did not maintain them, that is both legally and physically.

Land owners could charge a toll on private routes, but not on public right of ways.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Typically the right of ways through private to public are county right of ways, so some are maintained on a county level. There is no responsibility to maintain the right of way, unless said county wants to. Which is the funny thing about a lot of RS2477 claims. They claimed by the county, but the county let the routes go away decades ago when they did not maintain them, that is both legally and physically.
> 
> Land owners could charge a toll on private routes, but not on public right of ways.


One of the reasons I brought this up is that we have a road that goes through several properties that the county used to maintain, the county road superintendent researched his data base and found out that they had no responsibility to maintain the road and it only accessed private ground and did not pass through any public land and therefore they stopped maintaining it. The first land owner after leaving public land put in a gate and locked it only giving access to the private landowners.

The section that went through our land got pretty bad without the county maintaining it and almost became impassable, I spent several thousand dollars to repair and gravel that section.

That is why I asked who should pay for maintaining a right of way.


----------

