Exactly. The US uses shear size as a boundary to entry into the bases. I learned this after reading about the German family who perished in Death Valley and their perilous walk to find help at the nearby military base which proved fruitless. They were looking for a fence and guard towers not realizing they were walking further from help.

> > And if there's no fence, isn't it just public land that it's OK to walk on?

> Why would it be?

This isn't the culture in the US, but in some parts of the world, the default assumption is that land is accessible unless it's fenced or otherwise marked. There are some politeness norms like not walking right up to someone's house in the woods, but generally in i.e. Norway, if it's outside, you're probably allowed to be there.

The culture in the US seems to come from capitalism being such a part of our culture. Every resource, including land, is viewed as a commodity. Even many of our publicly-owned land which is ostensibly intended for public use, such as state and national parks, has entry fees.

> This isn't the culture in the US, but in some parts of the world, the default assumption is that land is accessible unless it's fenced or otherwise marked.

I don't think there is any doubt that these military bases were marked.

I was responding to the question in the following exchange:

> > And if there's no fence, isn't it just public land that it's OK to walk on?

> Why would it be?

That's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam and like you say, it's not the culture in the US.

Although land does need to be marked with "No Trespassing" signs in order to gain certain rights under the law.

> The culture in the US seems to come from capitalism being such a part of our culture. Every resource, including land, is viewed as a commodity. Even many of our publicly-owned land which is ostensibly intended for public use, such as state and national parks, has entry fees.

It costs money to maintain public lands like national parks. The neanderthals who don't understand Leave No Trace principles cause massive amounts of damage that needs to be prevented, policed, and repaired. Chores like trail maintenance, habitat restoration, wildlife studies, trash removal, toilet upkeep, etc. etc, all need to be done to keep the parks as close as possible to wild, so that the next generation can enjoy it. Entry fees fund the conservation of these public lands.

Yes, I'm well aware. I've done some of that work with my own hands. I think you're assuming that I don't think that money is worth it, but on the contrary, I wish the US would invest more money in public land.

It costs money to maintain public land, but that's not any less true in the other countries I'm talking about. The difference is that that cost is more likely to come from national budgets, rather than from fees, which is better in a lot of ways: it's more transparent, and is a progressive rather than regressive tax, is better for tourism, etc.

Also note that a lot of the non-fenced land in i.e. Norway isn't public land, it's private land, and it's still accessible to the public due to cultural norms. This may seem weird that there's a social expectation that people will open their private property to public use, but the flip side is that there's little cultural opposition to government helping maintain property. Many hiking shelters, for example, are on private property, but built and maintained by the government.