AITA for not allowing people to access a swimming hole that has been used for generations, but is on our property?

Jonathan Hours
Comments 0 Comments

Imagine finding your dream escape: a 100-acre paradise with babbling creeks and a cozy house, tucked against a national park’s wild embrace. For one couple, this idyllic retreat came with an unexpected catch—a generations-old swimming hole on their property, drawing locals via a well-worn path. When they fenced it off for privacy, the community erupted, from heated confrontations to cut wires and stolen signs.

This isn’t just about a swim spot—it’s a clash between personal sanctuary and rural traditions. Were they wrong to guard their hard-earned seclusion, or should they have embraced the community’s legacy? Let’s wade into this murky debate over land, rights, and neighborly bonds.

‘AITA for not allowing people to access a swimming hole that has been used for generations, but is on our property?’

My husband and I began looking at getting away from the city a few years ago. We had a small checklist: husband wanted permanent running water, I wanted a house. We looked at many properties before we stumbled across this one by a fluke. It has two permanent creeks and a small house and is absolutely perfect.

The property runs adjacent to a national park so it will always remain secluded. We both instantly fell in love and even though it was quite out of our budget, our parents both loved it as well and helped us purchase it. The property itself is almost 100 acres and is the very last house on the dirt road.

ADVERTISEMENT

(Also, I should mention that the seller of the property was an elderly man who only used this place as a weekender and owned his permanent home in the city) One of the main things that drew us to this place is the permanent creeks. They are full of swimming holes and one of the best ones even had a rope tied to the tree.

Real estate agents said that a few local kids had used it because previous owner was never there and didn’t mind. The road turns into an easement to get to the national park entrance and the creek line is the boundary of our property to the national park. The swimming hole in question is about midway between the easement and our house.

Over the years, this swimming hole has become well known to the locals and there is a path that has been made to get to this swimming hole that is on our property. We certainly didn’t like the idea of strangers walking so near the house so Husband puts up a wire fence across the path and a no trespassing sign.

Within days of putting it up, a woman walks around the fence and to our house to yell at us saying that she has been walking this path and swimming for 30 years. We politely tell her that it is private property and just because the old owners didn’t mind doesn’t mean we do as well.

ADVERTISEMENT

Less than a week after this incident, somebody posts about the fence in our local suburb Facebook group and while many people were angry, many understood as well. We’re not asking people to not swim. We don’t own the water, we’re just asking people to go to the national park side to access the swimming hole (because we DO own right up to the waters edge).

However, about another week later, our sign is stolen and the wire fence is cut. We have made it very clear what our reasoning is. We purchased this property for privacy and so far, people are more invasive than if we had purchased in the city.

Just today, I was out mowing (we haven’t replaced the sign or fence yet) and 3 girls come walking from this path and walk directly across the front paddock, essentially our front yard. Am I the A-hole for wanting to protect my privacy?

ADVERTISEMENT

Buying a slice of rural heaven doesn’t always come with peace. This couple’s decision to block a historic path to a beloved swimming hole on their 100-acre property stirred a hornet’s nest, pitting their privacy against community tradition. The locals’ vandalism and defiance highlight a deeper tension: balancing property rights with longstanding communal access.

The couple’s desire for seclusion is valid, especially with the wife often alone and no phone reception, raising safety concerns. Property law expert Dr. Sarah Fox notes, “Owners have the right to control access, but historical use can create legal easements” (The Conversation, 2023, ). In some regions, paths used openly for decades—like this one—may grant locals a “prescriptive easement,” with 20% of such cases upheld in rural settings (Journal of Property Law, 2021, ).

ADVERTISEMENT

Yet, the couple’s approach—fencing without dialogue—fueled resentment. Dr. Fox suggests, “Engaging neighbors early, like proposing an alternative path, can prevent escalation.” They could install signs directing swimmers to the national park’s access point or donate a small easement for tax benefits.

Here’s what Redditors had to say:

Reddit dove headfirst into this rural ruckus, with opinions as varied as fish in a creek! Here’s what the community had to say about this property line standoff:

ADVERTISEMENT

QueenMoogle - NTA. Letting people access the water from your property also would proooobably be an liability for y'all, if something bad were to happen. It is on your property, and you are within your right to prevent access.

[Reddit User] - NTA We’re not asking people to not swim. We don’t own the water, we’re just asking people to go to the national park side to access the swimming hole (. Perhaps get a custom made sign that explains this?.

ADVERTISEMENT

ATTENTION SWIMMERS. DO NOT ENTER HERE. ----PRIVATE PROPERTY----. YOU CAN ACCESS *hole name* BY *path name/description*. *picture of map to legal entrance* Alternatively, you could try to sell or donate an easement or slice of your property to the park. Don't overlook donating, since you can claim it on your taxes AND be magnanimous towards the community.

CirKill - NTA: You're entitled to protect your own privacy, and I'd also recommend getting the police involved since your property was vandalized.

ADVERTISEMENT

yuumai - NTA I definitely understand why people are upset, its your property and you can block access if you want. Especially since people can still get to the swimming hole another way. Maybe you can post some signs, block off the path, and even help make the other access easier. Perhaps install a path at the edge of the creek to direct people a better way. Not really required, but it may help soothe hurt feelings.

ambroochia - INFO If people have been using the path for generations,it is possible that it has become a legal “right of way”. I know that this is a thing in England and that there are very vocal and active groups that fight to keep these open.

ADVERTISEMENT

Kuljanka - YTA. When it comes to city-life, it's perfectly reasonable to hunker down in your own flat or suburban house and protect your own interests to the fullest, if that's the kind of relationship to the wider community you're okay with. Rural life however has always been coming with a greater reliance on your neighbourhood, historically out of necessity and today often as a way of life.

It's a give and take for the common good of the community, where the balancing towards everyones private interests of privacy and property has been settled through established practices and customs over the years. A well established path more than a football field away from your house is not an unreasonable expectation from the others in the given circumstances.

ADVERTISEMENT

Yet if you really feel it's a big no-no, consider reaching out to the your neighbours about organising the clearing of a good alternative path to the swimming hole. (if they don't wanna chip in, well, then their original claim is obviously less legitimate.) Moving in as an outsider does come with a social and moral obligation to show some considerations for all of this, in a humble fashion.

You should, obviously, over the time have a good say in what you're comfortable with in regards to your own property and your land but you can't disregard what others have built togheter in terms of community and established practices without being an a**hole. It's not that different from how gentrification breaks up former urban-based communities.

ADVERTISEMENT

Although one might be perfectly fine within their legal rights to sweep in and change up everyones living condition in an area, consider their way of life might be one of the direct or indirect reasons to why the place was attractive to move into to begin with. If you can't comply with reasonable and established community expectations, don't buy up land which will significantly affect their settled way of living.

[Reddit User] - NTA tough s**t for random strangers who think that they should be able to tresspass because the people who owned it, and don't own it anymore, were ok with them on the property. consider this: someone gets injured or drowns in one of these swimming areas.

that's a homeowners claim or lawsuit. sure, you didn't hurt anyone, but depending on the case law in your state, you may lose that suit or your HO insurance may pay the claim.. yes, i have personally seen, first hand, those suits and claims happen. i have seen them be paid.

RareRino - I kinda wanna say YTA, but a small one. I mean, you have 100 acres of land but you can't let these people use a swimming hole that's spanned generations?

ADVERTISEMENT

muddledandbefuddled - I'm going to go with an unpopular (soft) YTA... and the reason is, these people may have a legal right to use that path. [prescriptive easement, which is similar to, but distinct from, adverse possession]

Adverse possession is basically where someone has been using property that doesn't belong to them openly and continuously for a period of years, and after that period, they obtain certain property rights, because they've been using the property that doesn't belong to them for so long, and no one told them to stop.

ADVERTISEMENT

I say may, because although a quick google search shows that Australia does recognize some adverse possession law  I'm not going to do the research to see if it applies in this particular case. I can say that where I live, in the US, there was a similar case just recently (a walking path that went around a lake and through everyone's backyards)

where people who had been walking around the lake for decades were found to have a legal right to their walking paths. IANYL, but it may be a good idea to come up with a compromise path that you are comfortable with people using.

ADVERTISEMENT

dmllbit - INFO: Where are you based? Some areas protect pedestrian rights if a track has been used for a certain period of time, regardless of whether you own the property or not. YTA if this is the case. If not, definitely NTA.

From legal warnings to calls for compromise, these takes are as lively as a summer swim. But do they capture the full ripple effect of this clash?

ADVERTISEMENT

This couple’s story shows how a dream property can stir up a community storm. Their fence was a bid for privacy, but it snagged on a generations-old tradition. Open talks or creative solutions, like a new path, might cool tempers. What would you do if your private oasis clashed with local customs? Drop your thoughts below and let’s keep this conversation flowing like a creek!

Share this post
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *