That's not quite true. There are huge in number, small in overall size, amounts of public land east of the Mississippi. They're mostly all state forests, nature preserves, etc, etc and 99.9% of them are wholly unremarkable and barely utilized because you can only hike in so many identical forests or walk to the top of comparable hills before you get bored.

50+yr ago they were far more utilized (per capita) because they weren't closed to motorized recreation and hunting and fishing hadn't yet been regulated with intent to discourage participation.

But yes, the vast BLM lands out west have no analogue in the east.

Your linked source omits state and local managed land.

For example compare their map of Massachusetts with this map from the state: https://www.mass.gov/how-to/masswildlife-lands-viewer

> I've gotten explicit permission to cut through when I'm walking my dog from the neighbors that own the most valuable shortcuts, but I wish there were a custom or law that covered this instead of needing to rely on the kindness of strangers.

If enough people cross their land over a long enough period of time (varies by jurisdiction) without permission, that creates a "prescriptive easement," which is essentially what you're asking for. Some decent info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement#By_prescription

The majority of new-ish master planned suburban communities I’ve seen do have walking paths, bikeways, and parks baked in. Usually with some large HOA maintained pool, theater, I’ve even seen man made beaches (100s of miles from a coast). Although, they still usually have fenced yards and cutting through someone’s fenced yard without explicit permission is highly frowned upon, I would actually say dangerous when combined with gun situation being what it is.

I live in a suburban American neighborhood, built in the mid 2010's, which has ample walking paths and wide sidewalks. In fact, I cannot think of any newer neighborhood in this area which lacks walking infrastructure. Good sidewalks are a minimum. Usually there are dedicated walk and bike paths.

What is lacking is places you would actually walk to. There are numerous parks and a pool. But that's it. Don't get me wrong, it's great if you have a dog or enjoy running or walking. But I still have to drive everywhere.

> Or maybe we could build suburbs with these sorts of walking-paths baked in from the beginning.

We can. They exist. I've been in some of them.

The U.K. does not have a right to roam. It's a sore point for ramblers et al.. The legal situation differs between England and Wales, and Scotland; and campaigners would like the Scottish right to be also available in England and Wales, which largely only has what is tantamount to a codification of what the common law situation used to be back in the 20th century.

And indeed in Northern Ireland, which has the most restrictive laws in the U.K. in this respect, even more restrictive than the current situation in England and Wales.

I was watching a video of someone walking through rural england, and he kept talking about the "great forest" up ahead that was a unique and massive landmark. When he eventually got to it, it was the sort of bog-standard woods that everybody on the US east coast visits to walk their dog.

> You'd probably be shocked at just how much wilderness is in the UK.

You're right. I was shocked at just how little there is. If one's definition of large is more than a few square km, there's virtually none, for any sensible definition of wilderness, at least south of the Cairngorns.

I don't think we really disagree. We should have better laws preventing landowners from restricting access to public land, and we should have laws explicitly allowing things like corner-crossing. But these are mostly issues in areas of public land that border developed areas. Since the vast majority of public land in this country is freely accessible to everyone via public roads that can't be blocked by private landowners, there's never really been enough political will to do large-scale land access reform like they did in the UK.

Again, over 90% of UK land is private, and large land barons control the vast majority of that. We just don't have a similarly widespread issue with land access in the US.

Yeah same thing happens around here. A dude here bought some land which surrounded an old popular access road to Cleveland national forest (socal), and promptly put a gate up... For a while it was the only convenient way to drive into the mountains from riverside county. Alternative routes were either closed from fires, closed to vehicles, or located on the other side of the mountain range. Lots of Facebook drama between this guy and people in the area trying to access the national forest. He has a camera pointed at the gate and regularly posts altercations and threatens to shoot people.

Implied dedication doesn't make the land public, it simply creates a public easement allowing the public to continue using the land in the manner it was being used that created the implied dedication.

For example, if people openly hike through part of a private property for 5 years (in CA), and the owner knows this and does nothing, then after 5 years there will be a public easement for the public to continue using that part of the land as a hiking trail and the owner can no longer prevent that. OTOH, if he puts up signs on the 12th month of the 4th year, saying "Hiking permitted by owner", then no public easement is created, and the owner can subsequently close off public access at any point.

>IANL. Under American law,

Good thing you IANL'd that because this is very much a state by state thing, not an "american" thing.

Try roaming through Area 51. Or White Sands.

Nordics let you roam on private property.

Honestly in the US it has never been a problem since there is so much land. The laws are also unambiguous here. If I’m on someone’s property I can get shot but on public land we can shoot each other :)

I'm talking about King Phillip's war a century and a half before most of the treaty violation stuff started happening in earnest.

There are herds of wild deer a half hour outside NYC. Deer seem to be able to thrive anywhere as long as there aren't many predators.

The continental US (i.e. excluding alaska) has some 20+ mil wild deer, 200k bison, 1 mil bears, 3-4 mil coyotes, 13,000 wolves, 5 mil alligators, 10k+ mountain lions, etc, etc. Yes, most are in the vast western states. But deer and bears are common even in areas a just a couple hour drive outside of NYC. Thankfully no gators near NYC (except in the sewers, of course :-)

I created an account because I didn't have one. I just thought I'd correct a comment which was ignoring what actually happens in the UK. We have wild herds. In the Highlands they can be massive herds. I've known a few people to be involved in serious accidents as a result of hitting deer.

I’m fairly contrarian so I’m not surprised to get banned on occasion but I’ve noticed in the past few months completely innocuous statements are triggering the “you’re posting too fast ban”

Probably because of how aggressive the down-voting of unpopular opinions has become. Joke comments get upvotes, and thoughtful objections get flagged these days.

In texas it is merely your property not the building, and tresspassing is a valid reason.

You the survivor are the only witness however. I suppose Trayvon Martin is old news at this point.

> Nonsense. The castle doctrine only lets you kill trespassers if they are threatening your life.

Depends on the state. In Texas using deadly force is permissible to stop crimes like robbery. https://legalclarity.org/in-texas-can-you-shoot-someone-on-y...

And there was a case where it wasn't even the homeowner, it was the neighbor who shot the burgulars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy