Hacker News Reader

Comment by tpmx | Hacker News Reader

Relative to the population:

So much land... but so little "open" land.

Edit: The US has a higher population density number than I thought: 36 people per km^2. Still, it's not far that away from Sweden's 25 people people per km^2. Norway: 15 people per km^2, Finland: 18.

These scandinavian countries have a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam - of course it's culturally quite different in the US for historic reasons, but.. it just seems so weird to have opening hours to the nature.

If it was culturally/legally possible to step-by-step implement something like this in the US, I think it would be a great thing. I do see the challenges.

View on HN

Many popular US National Parks do not have open and closed hours. Closed hours are an exception not the rule and arise from unique conditions. Petrified Forest for example is closed at night to prevent illegal collection of its artifacts and rocks.

Parks such as Arches and Canyon Lands mentioned in the article turn away visitors when their limited infrastructure reaches capacity. And their infrastructure is deliberately limited to protect their natural and cultural resources.

Generally, a good strategy is visit before 10am and after 5pm during peak season. The crowds come after breakfast and leave for dinner.

Most American public land is not in National Parks even though the US park system is utterly vast. National Forests, National Monuments, National Grasslands, National Recreation Areas, and other public lands tend to be open access all the time.

The US doesn’t have freedom to roam because it is not really needed in most places. Texas is the exception due to having so little public land.

There are millions of acres of insanely easy to access BLM land but it’s all kinda boring.

In this context: BLM?

Bureau of Land Management https://www.blm.gov/

Bureau of Land Management was in the news during https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

Not everyone lives in California. Recreational land is much more sparse east of the Mississippi.

Map of "BLM" lands:

https://i.imgur.com/Czj3jmX.png

What's the story behind that?

The west is vast, mountainous, dry, and sparsely populated. Also title was acquired by the US Federal government. Mostly via Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican War and “treaties” with indigenous peoples.

NYS crowded, right? Well, just look at a map, e.g., via Google maps. Can look for lots of wilderness places in NYS, but, to make looking easy, just go to the Catskills or, better yet, north of Albany. There are huge areas of forest. For a name, try the Adirondacks. Somewhere up there they had a Winter Olympics -- plenty of ice, snow, and skiing!

Recently I escaped from NYS and went to east TN. There have the Smoky Mountains with huge areas of forest and hills.

Long lived in Maryland and often went to the mountains of VA -- huge areas of meadows, forests, deer, bears, etc., that is, Shenandoah!

And that's all well east of the Mississippi River.

Yes, technically, "Recreational land is much more sparse east of the Mississippi." but still huge. Yes, in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, it's harder to find people or buildings and easier to find wilderness!!!

But, sure, if go to Canada and north a few hundred miles of the border with the US, then find very sparse areas -- it seems that most of the people in Canada live not so far from the US.

But for the US again, if want wilderness, try Alaska. Of course we don't hear so much about the wildest parts of Alaska -- maybe the reason is so few people come back alive!

Can't see that changing in a hurry. It's barely a political given that BLM land in the West would survive as public space given how Americans feel about their federal governments.

Still, there are solid public spaces for camping/recreation in the east if you look. Harder to find, but it's there.

I live in the Midwest. There's a handful of decent camping/easy hiking places, but nothing fantastic. Glacial drift flattened most of the land here, so it's very boring. That being said, we still have a lot of public land here, it's just mostly run by the state or counties.

What constitutes midwest? Googling suggests it's more mid and north - is that right? There's still some charm in flat desert or forest. And if midwest includes South Dakota, I wouldn't cry about that - loved it.

For me, half of the appeal goes beyond the scenery to the ability to freely use a space. I'm not American but visit a lot and think the hierarchy of national parks, state parks and then monuments/forests/BLM is brilliant. If you don't want the rigid rules of a national park, go camp on BLM land for 10 days and pay nothing, etc.

South Dakota is indeed part of the Midwest (so is North Dakota), and arguably one of the more interesting parts of it. A good chunk of the Midwest is flat farmland, plains, and forest[0]. It's not very interesting, but certainly still camp-able. But hiking here is very mediocre.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States#Physi...

We roadtripped twice across the US in 2019 and didn't stop much going through Nebraska! Not everywhere wins the scenery lottery.

There is a lot that is less exciting than the highlights of a national park, but it's far from "all kinda boring". I've camped at loads of BLM locations and similar public, non-national-park spaces and found many great spots.

There are amazing BLM lands surrounding Arches and Canyon Lands National Parks. Not as amazing as what is in the parks, sure. But anywhere else they would be a prime destination.

> it just seems so weird to have opening hours to the nature.

Mostly only in the areas that you can drive to or that have something that can be destroyed.

Lots of areas in the US are available with a very brief hike and magically they don't seem to have opening hours.

In addition, there are lots of areas in the US that are quite beautiful but aren't under the management of BLM.

For goodness sake, almost the entire upper third of Pennsylvania is forest--as are huge swaths of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.

But you are trespassing when hiking there, right? Unless you ask the land owner for permission in advance.

Lots of land is owned by BLM (don't give a fuck what you do on it), states, counties, or towns (especially East). The latter often don't care much what you do on it. Even privately owned land is free to enter unless it's Posted or you've been told to leave.

> But you are trespassing when hiking there, right?

Nope. Lots of it is state forest. See Pennsylvania, for example:

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/StateForests/Pages/default.aspx

Lots of Texas hunters will actually come up to Pennsylvania to hunt because the land has so much less restriction (basically--buy a license, don't shoot near houses or people and you're good).

> it just seems so weird to have opening hours to the nature

No it is not. The natural parks are there to protect the nature and not to entertain the crowds of bored retards.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com