And who gets to make that determination? If you allow them on your property and someone is hurt, who are they going to sue? If you allow them on your property, what's to stop them from coming right up to the house, or even inside if you're not home?
It seems to me that I've read some articles from Britain where someone has left their home to have it renovated or remodeled, or even just for a short three or four day trip, and have come back to find squatters living inside the house.
Private property is private property. No one has a right to be on my property unless I say so ... and the good thing about Texas is that, after dark, I can defend my property with lethal force if need be.
Lancer, the answer to this is right in the article and is the very heart of the land-owner's reason to close of the area.
"She said she wanted to seal off the area because she was worried about insurance claims."
She was obviously worried about climbers falling off the rock formation and then suing her for their injuries.
With respect, squatters rights and the right to roam are two entirely different matters.
” If you allow them on your property, what’s to stop them from coming right up to the house, or even inside if you’re not home?”
The fact that the people who own this land do not live there. Nobody lives there. It’s moorland. Or heathland. Empty and desolate. You are confusing landowners with homeowners.
The Right To Roam is one of the few pieces of government legislation I can get behind.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/664820.stm
A BBC news article from 11 years ago, contemporary to the passing of the act, detailing what it means.