From the people who brought you covid lockdowns, All people banned from wilderness (now with snitch line!)

[Army Guy]

On 8/14/2025 at 4:28 PM, TreeBeard said:

100+ homes burn in NL wildfires. 
 

Conservatives:  “I wanna walk in the woooods”!!! 
 

And yet even with that fact NFLD still has "NO" ban in the woods.....neither do any other provinces which have major forest fires...So either they are being reasonable, or NS/ NB are overstepping...or those provinces with no bans are not protecting it's citizen's which one is it...

[Army Guy]

On 8/15/2025 at 6:27 PM, LinkSoul60 said:

It's about the province knowing that since 2009, 97% of forest fires in NS have been caused by humans and given the circumstances, they chose to ban people from the woods as a way to better protect their assets, citizens, and peoples homes.

Again, I'm not of the opinion that this takes away anyone's fundamental rights nor do I think we're on the road to authoritarianism.  I'm certainly not suspicious of government motives in an instance like this.  Just my 2 cents...

Maybe 🤷‍♂️ 😂

If we used that logic, we should ban people from driving cars, because some people drive drunk and kill people...we could ban a lot of things because some people are mor0ns...and you can't teach stupid....

nor should we punish everyone because of a few people....i find it funny that this is what the choose to do, restrict all peoples movements....i mean they could have said we are investing in Forrest management,or buying new water bombers,or hiring more Forest fire fighters...nope what they announces was most outdoor activities are canceled stay out of the woods, and our waterways not because of fire but because they may or may not be able to rescue anyone...

[LinkSoul60]

6 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

If we used that logic, we should ban people from driving cars

But we're not using the logic of banning people from driving cars, we're using the logic of keeping people out of tinder box woods for their and others safety.

I agree with it, but I didn't put the ban in place so you're complaining to wrong guy.  But all the complaining aside for a minute.... has not being able to go into the woods or on the water this past week been manageable and not causing too many problems I'd hope?  I don't know your government well, but trust they're not on a clear path to authoritarianism, or are they...?

[herbie]

You wanna use car logic? How dare they close the road just because there's an avalanche hazard! My freedumb dun took aay fer a while... Oooh ooh eee=eeh!

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, herbie said:

You wanna use car logic? How dare they close the road just because there's an avalanche hazard! My freedumb dun took aay fer a while... Oooh ooh eee=eeh!

Hitting the NyQuil a little hard this weekend aren't you?  

If you want to do a comparison it would be shutting the entire provincial road system down because there might be an avalanche hazard in one area.

But army guy actually had it right. Tonight on the roads of British Columbia there will be hundreds of drunk drivers. 101 if you decide to go somewhere.

That's a huge hazard. It's far more likely to cause death than a forest fire

So why don't we just shut down the roads?

Instead what we do is something more sensible like higher police to make sure that drunk drivers are caught and punished, we license drivers to make sure they know what the rules are for safe operation of their vehicle, and we have regulation for use to make sure that everyone is on the same page and understands how to behave safely

But instead of doing any of that these guys just shut down the whole woods for the whole province. Their job was to find a way to make sure that people could use the woods safely and they failed to even try and now to cover that up they demand people be banned from their right to use crown land. 

 

You always applaud like crazy when it's somebody else's rights being taken away but god help us all if it's the rights of a transsexual or a liberal. Then we're all going to die

[WestCanMan]

On 8/6/2025 at 9:13 PM, CdnFox said:

Nova Scotia premier implements province-wide ban on hiking, camping, fishing

Yep. They basically said there's a risk of fire so nobody's allowed to leave the city and go into the woods. No fishing no hiking no nothing. You have to stay where you are until winter and it's safe again.

This reminds me of how they built up covid hysteria... They make harsh rules which restrict your freedom, all predicated on the "fact" that covid, or in this case AGW, is a dire threat to everyone's existence.

It's not hunters that they need to keep out of the forest, it's AGW cultists with matches. 

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

But we're not using the logic of banning people from driving cars, we're using the logic of keeping people out of tinder box woods for their and others safety.

I agree with it, but I didn't put the ban in place so you're complaining to wrong guy.  But all the complaining aside for a minute.... has not being able to go into the woods or on the water this past week been manageable and not causing too many problems I'd hope?  I don't know your government well, but trust they're not on a clear path to authoritarianism, or are they...?

Yes and we could ban people from driving because it keeps others safe from drunk drivers....

yes,everyone has all their toes and fingers, and everything has been mangable...not the point but yes....even with the ban in place more fires have been started by people no less...like i said punishing everyone for a few asshats...or the 1 % of the population...

Me, i'm not concerned with the government overreach, or authoritarianism my problem it is with their solutions, going from reasonable to overkill....If banning people was the answer why is not every province doing it....is banning necessary to get a grip on fires....

[eyeball]

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But army guy actually had it right. Tonight on the roads of British Columbia there will be hundreds of drunk drivers. 101 if you decide to go somewhere.

That's a huge hazard. It's far more likely to cause death than a forest fire

So why don't we just shut down the roads?

I fail to see why any vehicle should be allowed on the road without a breathalyzer interlock system.

It's like allowing cars with faulty brakes and bald tires on the road.

Personally though I fail to see why self-driving cars don't come equipped with a bar. What do you mean I need to pay attention to the road, who's driving the car again?

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

You wanna use car logic? How dare they close the road just because there's an avalanche hazard! My freedumb dun took aay fer a while... Oooh ooh eee=eeh!

How does that compare,we are talking about other peoples actions like lighten fires, or driving drunk and then punishing everyone else for their actions....kind of like the gun ban on legal gun owners because the criminals hence the name criminals don't follow the law....must be something in that liberal logic....a small percentage of the population screw things up and the majority of law abiding citizens get punished...

[Army Guy]

Mean while in Sask fire fighter who has 30 charges of Arson...gets 18 months of probation and community service....walk into the woods in NS AND GET A 25,000 FINE, PLUS HST AND A VICTIMS TAX ....

Saskatchewan volunteer firefighter who set 30 fires in a month sentenced for arson

Logan Sieben sentenced to 18 months of probation, 200 hours of community service

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/macklin-firefighter-hay-bale-arson-court-1.7441239

Edited August 17, 2025 by Army Guy

[eyeball]

24 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

...must be something in that liberal logic....a small percentage of the population screw things up and the majority of law abiding citizens get punished...

It used to be called suffering fools gladly.

"For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise."

Meanwhile, speaking of fools, how many people are sleeping behind the wheel of their self driving cars? How on Earth does anyone expect people will remain alert while a car is in autonomous mode? This seems like a negligent misunderstanding of human nature by car engineers and road safety experts. Do these people even talk to one another?

 

 

Edited August 17, 2025 by eyeball

[LinkSoul60]

13 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Yes and we could ban people from driving because it keeps others safe from drunk drivers....

yes,everyone has all their toes and fingers, and everything has been mangable...not the point but yes....even with the ban in place more fires have been started by people no less...like i said punishing everyone for a few asshats...or the 1 % of the population...

Me, i'm not concerned with the government overreach, or authoritarianism my problem it is with their solutions, going from reasonable to overkill....If banning people was the answer why is not every province doing it....is banning necessary to get a grip on fires....

The funny thing is, I'd bet it's a lot of the same people who would be complaining if there were no bans and someone actually did suffer or worse because of a lack of emergency response.  I'm sure there would be an uproar because they didn't do their job.  Can't make everyone happy.

I'll bet that very shortly after the provinces receive a noticeable amount of rain the ban will be lifted and then it's life back to normal, except for the people who lost homes or livelihoods to the fires.  The few asshats is the problem though isn't it.  Asshats everywhere and if it's fact that asshats cause the vast majority of your fires.  Like most things....it's the few asshats that ruin it for everyone.

You guys complained about the government overreach during covid too.  Best I'm aware though is that after covid ran its course and restrictions were lifted the federal government hasn't tried anything further to be an authoritarian state?  Guessing the same will be the case with your province and NS.  

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

This reminds me of how they built up covid hysteria... They make harsh rules which restrict your freedom, all predicated on the "fact" that covid, or in this case AGW, is a dire threat to everyone's existence.

It's not hunters that they need to keep out of the forest, it's AGW cultists with matches. 

EVERY time a gov't steps on people's rights, almost without fail, they declare an 'emergency' first.  Basically freedom dies in 'crisis'. 

 

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

I fail to see why any vehicle should be allowed on the road without a breathalyzer interlock system.

 

That's because you're mentally unstable and somehow I've arrived at the decision that the government is the only body or organization that can possibly successfully tell people how to live their lives while simultaneous ly managing to blame the government for most of the ills in the universe.

I'm afraid your challenges are Beyond the skills of the people here to solve. You are definitely into the professional help spectrum  

[Goddess]

On 8/15/2025 at 3:23 PM, CdnFox said:

No they did absolutely nothing even though they knew this was going to happen. And now they want to pretend that it's a crisis that needs immediate resolution that involves curtailing people's rights to use canadian land.

So what we're doing is authorizing it's authority if it doesn't do its job by removing our rights to the activities their job to make sure we had access to in the first place.

That is an absolutely horrible precedent to set. The government can ban any activity instead of doing its job and making sure those activities are available.

You get it.

I realize this is quite a long interview that we just did at work, but if you skip ahead to about 45:10, the discussion gets interesting.  

At about 51:00 - Bret talks about "turnkey totalitarianism".

"The key to a totalitarian regime is to erect it without activating it.  So that at the point that it gets activated, it's too late to do anything about it.......Any time you see them target your rights - whether or not those were rights that you were using - you should be alarmed.  You should fight it."

 

[Goddess]

On 8/15/2025 at 4:16 PM, CdnFox said:

If that's true then why didn't they deal with the problem over the last 12 years? Why didn't they improve their forest fire fighting capabilities or manage the forests better? Or use controlled burns or create a permit process for when fire risks are high or take any of a dozen other possible solutions?

All you're saying is the government completely failed to do its duty and is trying to compensate by taking away the rights of individuals to enjoy the province.

That's not a good thing.

Canada has an arson problem.  From the 250 churches being burnt down, to various businesses and buildings, to deliberate brush fires being set, Canada has an arson problem.

And this government's response to it is to curtail rights.  It's their answer to everything, the only tool in their toolbox.  They used it during covid, they're using it now.

They do it because it's easy.  They're lazy and stupid.

[Barquentine]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

police to make sure that drunk drivers are caught and punished,

Yeah, you can police the roads. Try policing the woods in New Brunswick. (Before or after the fire has started)

The few polls taken show citizens are overwhelmingly in favour of the ban.

Edited August 17, 2025 by Barquentine
adding text

[CouchPotato]

12 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

The funny thing is, I'd bet it's a lot of the same people who would be complaining if there were no bans and someone actually did suffer or worse because of a lack of emergency response.  I'm sure there would be an uproar because they didn't do their job.  Can't make everyone happy.

You bet? What kind of an argument is that?

I live in NB, it's been tinder dry for most of the summer, and at no time did I hear anyone complaining that the government wasnt banning people from the forest or fining people 25 k. I have heard people complaining about people having fires or doing careless stuff. 

As for lack of an emergency response, I go hiking and never once have I been injured and seen anyone injured. If lack of an emergency response were an issue why not ban cycling or skateboarding? Why should it matter whether its in the woods or not? If emergency response is an issue right now why would it matter where you are being injured?

Edited August 17, 2025 by CouchPotato

[Aristides]

13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

This reminds me of how they built up covid hysteria... They make harsh rules which restrict your freedom, all predicated on the "fact" that covid, or in this case AGW, is a dire threat to everyone's existence.

It's not hunters that they need to keep out of the forest, it's AGW cultists with matches. 

Everything reminds you of Covid.

[CouchPotato]

11 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

The few polls taken show citizens are overwhelmingly in favour of the ban.

This is why things like rights aren't subject to the tyranny of the majority. 

[Barquentine]

6 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

This is why things like rights aren't subject to the tyranny of the majority. 

You do know using crown land is a privelege, not a right, don't you. Can you saunter around a military base any time you want? Can you enter a Federal or Provincial bldg at 3:00 am?

Nova Scotia:
"In Nova Scotia, access to Crown land is generally a privilege, not an absolute right. While Nova Scotians are welcome to enjoy the natural beauty of Crown land, accessing it often requires permission or adherence to specific regulations, particularly for activities beyond basic recreational use."

Canada:
"Restrictions: Right of access is not absolute. Certain areas may be closed for specific purposes (e.g., wildfire risk, resource extraction), and activities like building structures or cutting trees without authorization are prohibited."

[CouchPotato]

1 hour ago, Barquentine said:

You do know using crown land is a privelege, not a right, don't you. 

But I didn't say it was an absolute right did I? I said things like rights. And you don't decide these things based on polls.

Highway use can be restricted as well for various reasons. But it would be draconian if we started restricting access without a valid reason and fining people absurd amounts of money. And there is no valid reason. First off, no one is a potential fire risk for simply going into the woods. I could go into the woods today and guarantee I am not going to start a fire. I simply don't ignite anything, right? Or I don't toss a glass bottle out there. (I suppose I could spontaneously combust). So it's not that people in general are an actual fire risk. They aren't. It's that some people either a) do malicious things or b) are careless. And everyone else is being punished because of what they could potentially choose to do. Not because they are any more risk to do so than anyone else.

Now I could possibly start a fire intentionally or I could do something careless which results in a fire. That is a possibility. But people can endanger lives recklessly anywhere. You can kill someone by drinking and driving. But you don't restrict road access for everyone because some people choose to do dangerous things on the road. And we don't fine people 25 grand when they do those stupid things. Someone who chooses to drink and drive is more of a danger than someone who decides to walk in the woods, unless that person does something additional which is stupid like smoking back there. Simply going in the woods is not a risk. How is it reasonable to fine someone 25k for doing something that is not a risk because they could potentially choose to do something else which is? That is insane. We rarely fine people that much when we know they have chosen to do stupid things.

As for the emergency response thing, it is total BS. There is no way around that. If you are worried that people getting hurt is a drain on emergency services, then why should it matter where the injury happens? If you wanted to stop people from injuring themselves you would restrict them from doing activities most likely to cause injury, not that that is a good idea either. I've seen more people injured playing sports than I have ever seen while hiking (which is zero). 

 

Edited August 17, 2025 by CouchPotato

[CouchPotato]

1 hour ago, Barquentine said:

Try policing the woods in New Brunswick.

It's pretty much impossible to police a lot of things. Police can not be everywhere at once. There is all kinds of space out there in Canada that isn't being policed and people can do all kinds of nasty things there until they get caught.

You know what can help to some degree, though. Witnesses. If the police can't be at the scene of every bad thing, it may also be that they take much longer addressing it because they don't even know it happened.

In other news, I see they have just upped the rain forecast for today to 20 - 25 mms here in Northern NB. That's awesome. They were originally giving out 5 to 10. Cmon rain.

Edited August 17, 2025 by CouchPotato

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

You get it.

I realize this is quite a long interview that we just did at work, but if you skip ahead to about 45:10, the discussion gets interesting.  

At about 51:00 - Bret talks about "turnkey totalitarianism".

"The key to a totalitarian regime is to erect it without activating it.  So that at the point that it gets activated, it's too late to do anything about it.......Any time you see them target your rights - whether or not those were rights that you were using - you should be alarmed.  You should fight it."

 

Regarding the bunkers: they are very common in wealthy homes. 

[CouchPotato]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Everything reminds you of Covid.

But he isn't wrong. The current response in NB and NS is similar in many ways. It is an emotional overreaction. Like making people follow arrows and socially distancing. Let's just make up all kinds of random senseless rules and impose ridiculous fines because of a crisis. It doesn't make sense to ban people from doing something that is harmless simply because they could choose to do something which is harmful while doing it. That's a precedent that should be avoided. Hiking in and of itself is not a fire risk. 

Edited August 17, 2025 by CouchPotato

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Yeah, you can police the roads. Try policing the woods in New Brunswick. (Before or after the fire has started)

 

If you police the roads then your policing who is getting into or out of the woods. I see it all the time here in BC, it's not complicated. If you want to cut down on arson you make it so that people need a permit which they can get online in 5 minutes outlining the area that they're going to. And the dates that they're going to be there. The cops catch someone going to or from that area without a permit fine. Fair game. Now you've got a list of people who are in the area

Let's be real, an arsonist is going to get back there and start a fire even if there is a ban in place. So let's not pretend that there are people out there who are thinking to themselves "Gosh, I really want to start an illegal fire and cause Mayhem but I really can't because the government said I wasn't allowed to go into the woods".

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Nova Scotia:
"In Nova Scotia, access to Crown land is generally a privilege, not an absolute right.

So what's next, leaving your home is a privilege not a right? Leaving your neighborhood is a privilege not a right?

They're incorrect. According to the constitution canadians have the right to freedom of travel and this came up during covid when they tried to lock us into cities and say you couldn't travel between provinces or even within your own province. In the end of the cops refuse to force it because indeed we do have a right and it would be up to the government to prove that it was absolutely necessary to interfere with that right and there was no other way around it.

Denying people access to the woods where there is a fire could easily be justified as they're being no way around it. They can interfere inadvertently with the efforts

But just banning people from an entire province before there's even a fire is an absolutely horrible precedent and it shouldn't be hard to figure out why.