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

[Barquentine]

Long Lake fire in Nova Scotia last night. Good enough reason for the woods ban.

[User]

9 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Long Lake fire in Nova Scotia last night. Good enough reason for the woods ban.

Its clearly working... I mean, if we keep people out of the woods, there won't be any fires... er, woops. 

[CdnFox]

55 minutes ago, User said:

Its clearly working... I mean, if we keep people out of the woods, there won't be any fires... er, woops. 

Sure, that one LOOKS bad but that's just a regular fire. If it had been the kind caused by hiking boots we could have lost the entire province

[TreeBeard]

10 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Long Lake fire in Nova Scotia last night. Good enough reason for the woods ban.

Apparently, the conservative lions are walking around those woods cuz they gots their freedumbs!   

59 minutes ago, User said:

Its clearly working... I mean, if we keep people out of the woods, there won't be any fires... er, woops. 

Do you think not having people out in the woods reduces the risk somewhat, given many fires are human caused?

[User]

20 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you think not having people out in the woods reduces the risk somewhat, given many fires are human caused?

Locking people up in their basements would reduce a lot of risk too...

The point here is that human-caused fires are almost all attributed to smoking, campfires, and/or ATVs... so why not focus on levying huge fines on those activities instead of anyone and everyone merely going out to enjoy nature for a hike?

Most of the fires are caused by lightning and the vast majority of destruction from fires is from those caused by lightning. 

 

Edited August 25, 2025 by User

[TreeBeard]

45 minutes ago, User said:

Locking people up in their basements would reduce a lot of risk too...

That’s not an issue and irrelevant to the question. 
 

 

46 minutes ago, User said:

so why not focus on levying huge fines on those activities instead of anyone and everyone merely going out to enjoy nature for a hike?

Because it’s not realistic to catch someone while they happen to be smoking. And by the time there’s a fires, it’s too late.  Better to mitigate risks in a realistic manner rather than trying to catch someone in the act of smoking. 

 

48 minutes ago, User said:

Most of the fires are caused by lightning and the vast majority of destruction from fires is from those caused by lightning. 

About half and half in Canada.  

[User]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

That’s not an issue and irrelevant to the question. 

Irrelevant? So, now you don't want to reduce risk?

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Because it’s not realistic to catch someone while they happen to be smoking. And by the time there’s a fires, it’s too late.  Better to mitigate risks in a realistic manner rather than trying to catch someone in the act of smoking. 

The point is deterrent. By the time you catch someone hiking, walking, or doing anything out in the forest... it is too late if they were going to be starting fires. 

 

[CouchPotato]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Because it’s not realistic to catch someone while they happen to be smoking. And by the time there’s a fires, it’s too late.

All kinds of terrible acts can be commited in situations where it's not realistic to catch people. Maybe people shouldn't be allowed anywhere they cannot be continually monitored??

Here in NB the forest was dangerously dry most of the summer. It wasn't until there were all these fires that all of sudden hiking became a crime worthy of a 25 grand fine. Before that, and in spite of the dry conditions people were hiking freely. But the risk was always there and was a huge topic of conversation here. Especially in a rural area like where I live. "We really need some rain. We are lucky we haven't had any fires yet." Do you think it would have been reasonable to ban hiking all summer? Should we ban it during dry weeks? 

[TreeBeard]

15 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

Here in NB the forest was dangerously dry most of the summer. It wasn't until there were all these fires that all of sudden hiking became a crime worthy of a 25 grand fine. Before that, and in spite of the dry conditions people were hiking freely. But the risk was always there and was a huge topic of conversation here. Especially in a rural area like where I live. "We really need some rain. We are lucky we haven't had any fires yet." Do you think it would have been reasonable to ban hiking all summer? Should we ban it during dry weeks? 

Sounds like they should’ve done it earlier then, eh?

[CouchPotato]

18 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Sounds like they should’ve done it earlier then, eh?

I disagree entirely. Most of the fires here are in areas where no one would ever be hiking. But I am asking you, do you think entry to the woods should be restricted whenever there are dry conditions? 

There is hardly a year where there is no period of high fire risk. All you need is a lack of rain for a little while and very hot weather. And people could conceivably be careless with fire at any time. Do you propose banning the forest every year?

Edited August 26, 2025 by CouchPotato

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

I disagree entirely. Most of the fires here are in areas where no one would ever be hiking. But I am asking you, do you think entry to the woods should be restricted whenever there are dry conditions?

Sure.  

[CouchPotato]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

Sure.  

And would that include private land as well?

[CouchPotato]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Because it’s not realistic to catch someone while they happen to be smoking. And by the time there’s a fires, it’s too late.

Going back to this statement... As I pointed out before, there are all kinds of horrible things people can get away with in situations where they cannot be easily monitored. All you need is a certain amount of privacy. Even your own home affords a certain amount of privacy to commit crimes. Should we do more to mitigate risk by restricting people from situations where it would not be realistic to catch them doing something?

[User]

10 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Sure.  

Well, I see you have given up. 
 

Better lock yourself up in your basement, it’s the only way to be sure. 

[Nationalist]

Boys!

The Libbies have found a new reason to hate humanity. We can start fires.

And they got an opportunity to try restricting human activity and even imposed a tattle-tale line. Oh they are in their glory. Only twice previous in their lives,  have they been so ecstatic. 

The Rona...

And that time in grade 2 when they tattled on Billy for chewing gum in class.

These people are pathetic.

[Barquentine]

17 hours ago, User said:

Its clearly working... I mean, if we keep people out of the woods, there won't be any fires... er, woops. 

Yeah fires start naturally, by lightning, etc...

But people make the risk and likelihood MUCH worse!

Concerns about woods travel during drought:

People starting fires is only one concern.
People getting stranded in woods by fire, requiring a lot of resources for extraction
People starting fires while all fire-fighting resoiurces are already over-strained
Fishermen in small boats on lakes preventing water bombers from reloading
Complete id!ots with drones or fireworks (It happens)
Keeping id!ots from going in "to watch' (It happens)
Etc....

But God forbid you right wing Snowflakes should have one of your privileges temporarily restricted!

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Yeah fires start naturally, by lightning, etc...

But people make the risk and likelihood MUCH worse!

Concerns about woods travel during drought:

People starting fires is only one concern.
People getting stranded in woods by fire, requiring a lot of resources for extraction
People starting fires while all fire-fighting resoiurces are already over-strained
Fishermen in small boats on lakes preventing water bombers from reloading
Complete id!ots with drones or fireworks (It happens)
Keeping id!ots from going in "to watch' (It happens)
Etc....

But God forbid you right wing Snowflakes should have one of your privileges temporarily restricted!

So we should ban people from the woods 

People also make crime worse.  We should ban people from the streets except for necessary travel only

Religion makes things worse, we should ban it 

How long till you decide jews make things worse?

Trump says illegal immigrants make things worse and he's banning them. Some people are saying that's not a great thing. 

 

The gov'ts job is not to simply ban people from things under the excuse of 'security'.  

[Barquentine]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So we should ban people from the woods 

People also make crime worse.  We should ban people from the streets except for necessary travel only

Religion makes things worse, we should ban it 

How long till you decide jews make things worse?

Trump says illegal immigrants make things worse and he's banning them. Some people are saying that's not a great thing.

Did you have a Trumpian meltdown in the middle of the night?

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Did you have a Trumpian meltdown in the middle of the night?

If you read your own logic like that and decide it's  "trumpian",  maybe you need to think about your logic a bit more  

You argued that because people make a thing more dangerous people should be banned from it. This is the same logic in each of my examples. 

I would tend to agree it's a BAD reason and bad logic. But you seemed pretty proud of it right up until you realized you were agreeing with trump  

[Shady]

Btw, speaking of covid, the misinformation was pretty wild!

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1B78QRSP68/?mibextid=wwXIfr

[User]

On 8/26/2025 at 10:45 AM, Barquentine said:

But people make the risk and likelihood MUCH worse!

No, people do not... people engaged in risky activities like smoking, fires, off road vehicles do. 

I hope you have yourself locked up in your basement, because your mere existence and every day activities create risk! OMG

[Shady]

On 8/25/2025 at 6:23 PM, User said:

Its clearly working... I mean, if we keep people out of the woods, there won't be any fires... er, woops. 

Don't you know that keeping people out of the woods will prevent lightning strikes which is the leading cause of all wildfires!

[Legato]

On 8/27/2025 at 7:03 AM, Barquentine said:

Did you have a Trumpian meltdown in the middle of the night?

You seem to be one of those people who would start a forest fire just to prove how right you are.

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, Shady said:

Don't you know that keeping people out of the woods will prevent lightning strikes which is the leading cause of all wildfires!

I notice you lie a lot to try and make a point.  
 

”Humans are responsible for slightly more than half of all wildfires in Canada”

https://www.canadawildfire.org/wildfirefacts#:~:text=Humans are responsible for slightly,WILDFIRE BEHAVIOUR

Edited August 28, 2025 by TreeBeard

[User]

31 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I notice you lie a lot to try and make a point.  

Well, speaking of facts, lightning is responsible for something like 85% of the destruction of fires...