Oh, @Camikaze: I really don't know where you think I am going wrong here about property rights. I don't think I have stated anything that is in conflict with how it works here in good ol' USA, which given my OP is precisely what I should be basing it on.
The 'why do you hate property rights' question is, I think, valid enough for two reasons. Firstly and most obviously, as far as I understand it, the right to roam is generally a property right. So you're suggesting that a property right should be abolished. Secondly, the suggestion that it tears at the very fabric of private ownership, and your more general attitude towards the right, suggests a disdain for the underpinnings of land title.
To elaborate, I'd add that your quite flippant attitude towards the legal basis of your title to your land also seems to demonstrate a disdain for property rights themselves, in favour of 'might is right', which is quite a different type of claim, and indicates that you'd be fine with someone forcefully dispossessing you of your property. If you're truly concerned with the fabric of private property, you really need to think much harder about the legal basis of your own ownership.
Now, I can't speak directly to American property law, but the histories of Australia and America holds some striking similarities that would seem quite relevant. Before Australia was colonised, all land was held on native title by the indigenous population. The colonisation, by imposing the Crown's sovereignty on the Australian continent, granted the Crown radical title over the land. This means that, although none of the native title was automatically extinguished, the Crown gained the right to extinguish it, and deal with it as it saw fit. It did as such, and granted various parcels of land to individuals, who thereby had beneficial title to it. Crucially, this beneficial title was entirely reliant on the radical title of the Crown; the radical title was the legal basis for taking land that had previously been held by native title. Over time, more and more parcels of land were handed out, and eventually Australia federated and the Constitution noted that the Crown would have to provide compensation when acquiring land (or 'resuming' land; it's called 'resuming' because they're resuming their initial ownership). Nowadays, some areas of native title have not yet been extinguished, and most of Australia is held on a basis other than native title. The house in which I live, for instance, is beneficially owned by my parents, which is only possible thanks to the radical title of the Crown and its prerogative to grant the beneficial ownership of the land to the predecessors to the current title, in preference to the pre-existing native title. If it emerged that the Crown never exercised its radical title in relation to the land on which I live (which would be quite impossible, but hypothetically speaking), then the native title would not have been extinguished, and the indigenous holders of that title would be the rightful 'owners' of the land. I believe property operates similarly in the US, and is related to the concept of eminent domain.
The point being, the basis of land ownership is a government grant and continuing government radical title (or whatever the similar concept is called in the US). At this point, if you were tempted to break out Locke's labour theory of property, I'd point you to the fact that the Crown could only have obtained absolute beneficial title to land which was
terra nullius. And it wasn't. There was no vacant land on which a natural property right could have developed.
Of course, the fact that the basis of land ownership is a government grant and continuing government radical title, doesn't mean the government can do whatever they want with the property to which you hold beneficial ownership. It just means that the 'fabric of private property' at which you think the right to roam would be tearing, is a fabric knitted by government. Now, it would be bizarre to suggest that although ownership is by virtue of government, they couldn't have placed conditions on the original grant for the good of the public. If you were to suggest that the right to roam were incompatible with private property, I'd have to assume that this is because you don't believe that private property ownership is by virtue of government. This would amount to an attack on the underlying basis of your property ownership. If you are taking this position, you are saying that property rights are simply a matter of 'might being right', and that there's no real legal basis for your title. Accordingly, you'd be stating that your title to your land is little more than your ability to forcibly exclude others.
Of course, the right to roam operates in property systems older than the US or Australia, but the same principle generally applies; the right to roam is a condition of the government's grant of particular land (even if that condition is implemented via a different mechanism). It isn't an imposition on private rights, because those private rights were only granted on condition that there be a right of access for the public. In this sense, it's little more than a contractual issue. And I'm sure you believe in the sanctity of contracts.
).
but we're gonna be civilized barbarians !! 
We gonna send a diplomatic mission into Mr. Bshup's lawn territory. I just hope He's not from Texas cos he could shoot us :O
