[the_absurdist]

  But the article is actually addressing ocean access.

No. Actually the article is talking about beach access via traversing private property.

  There are 3.7 million square miles of land in the US, but only 88k miles of coastline. It's a vastly more rare resource. There are lots of places across the US which are still untouched wilderness, both private and public. I would argue that there are no unexplored beaches on the California coast. It's a very finite resource and there not that much to go around, especially in the most desireable areas.

So simply because there is no "unexplored" coastline, and because there is only 88k miles of it...it should all necessarily be open to the public?

Your argument then is that relatively scarce lands should be necessarily open to the public. Where does that end? Beaches? Waterfalls? Rock formations? Absurd.