Seems like excessive government overreach. Even California hasn't gone so far as to ban mere hiking as far as I'm aware.
Failures by the government in forestry management and firefighting shouldn't be used to restrict people's ability to enjoy nature and use public land.
They still need to solve the root problems... Lighting starts fires too and they can't outlaw that.
misswaterfairy · 9m ago
> Seems like excessive government overreach.
Wildfires start often without warning, and can spread very quickly, especially in hot, dry, windy conditions. We can never predict where a fire will start, as it could be one of many causes. Firefighting is always reactive in this regard.
This move is purely to protect people from being seriously injured, or (horrifically) burnt alive, by unexpectedly ignited fast-moving wildfires. Fire trucks and firefighters are not an unlimited resource, they can be overstretched in long campaign events with further unexpected ignitions.
As others have alluded to Australia is often accused of government overreach, but I can say that these decisions are not taken lightly as we don't want to be alarmist or restrict people's freedoms, but we also need to balance the very real threat to public safety that wildfire poses, and causes.
The language the news article uses is, in my view, misleading. "Ban" implies non-negotiable permanence and is often associated with a permanent restriction of personal freedoms, though the article, which lets face it most people don't read beyond headlines these days, is more akin to the temporary 'closure' to parts of public areas in forests and national parks, the same orders often issued by Australian fire authorities, to protect people from areas and conditions that are potentially (or are actually) dangerous to be in during elevated fire danger periods.
"Ban" sounds a lot worse than "Closure", though I also recognise this may be a legislative quirk, or confusion of terms: we have "Total Fire Ban" (government area wide, or statewide), "Park Fire Ban" and "Solid Fuel Fire Bans" (specific to individual parks, and forests respectively) that are both temporary but must be called 'bans', as those are the specific legislative tools given to us to manage ignitions.
Source: am a firefighter who has had to deal with these issues, during some very significant and internationally notable fire emergencies.
strken · 1h ago
Most states of Australia (which, yes, is the anglosphere capital of government overreach) ban most hiking on government land on days that are rated catastrophic fire danger.
Not for months at a time, though.
justusthane · 1h ago
I’m fairly certain it has much more to do with climate change than forest management, and that’s a pretty hard root cause to immediately address.
Two quick statistics I found (both government-provided) state that 40% and 85% of wildfires, Canada and US respectively, are started by humans.
Wildfires are so bad in Canada right now. If access to Crown land has to be restricted to prevent it all from literally going up in flames, than so be it.
lfuller · 1h ago
It’s not only crown land in this case - it’s all land, public or private.
_spduchamp · 38m ago
I just got back from a 3 week driving/camping trip in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and PEI. Saw one big plume of smoke from a forest fire in New Brunswick, and the skies were tinged red with smoke in NB, Quebec, and Ontario. The forests are extremely dry. My friend's well is going dry and ground water is low. Two days ago in NB, standing outside in a breeze, it felt like a hairdryer blowing, hot and dry. If the peat lands start burning, that will burn underground and they can't stop it.
To me, having just been there, and witnessing some asshole behaviour from some of the campers, it makes total sense to close down the parks. There are not enough resources to deal with more fires there. Keep in mind these are not heavily populated provinces, so there are less resources to deal with out of control fires.
zahlman · 5h ago
Title edited for length and clarity from the original: N.S. bans hiking and use of vehicles in woods as dry conditions raise wildfire fears
For context, the government of Canada provides https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/interactive-map to track wildfires. At time of submission, Nova Scotia is currently reporting a single wildfire — under control, at an area of 1.3 hectares. It seems there were a couple more when the story was posted. Even other Maritime provinces are currently dealing with much worse, to say nothing of the northern Prairies.
mikeyouse · 1h ago
There are several hundred other wildfires currently burning across the country which has burned nearly 18 million acres this year, making it the second worst season in recorded history.. when your fire assets are all in other provinces, it makes sense to be cautious “at home”.
metalman · 4h ago
35°c, in the shade here, almost precisly on the 45'th parallel, the ground in baked hard, evrything is starting to wilt a bit, peole are getting water trucked in to there dug wells, just checked weather across the country and we seem to be about the hottest, will last a few more days, my fridge quit first thing this morning, my horse has never sought shade till today, almost no mosquitos, temp tonight will be in the mid teens, and then back up again, only good thing, is that there is no wind.........normal NS weather/climate is much much cooler and damp....to the point that mycologists come here to do field work, the only place with more mushrooms bieng somwhere in siberia
Failures by the government in forestry management and firefighting shouldn't be used to restrict people's ability to enjoy nature and use public land.
They still need to solve the root problems... Lighting starts fires too and they can't outlaw that.
Wildfires start often without warning, and can spread very quickly, especially in hot, dry, windy conditions. We can never predict where a fire will start, as it could be one of many causes. Firefighting is always reactive in this regard.
This move is purely to protect people from being seriously injured, or (horrifically) burnt alive, by unexpectedly ignited fast-moving wildfires. Fire trucks and firefighters are not an unlimited resource, they can be overstretched in long campaign events with further unexpected ignitions.
As others have alluded to Australia is often accused of government overreach, but I can say that these decisions are not taken lightly as we don't want to be alarmist or restrict people's freedoms, but we also need to balance the very real threat to public safety that wildfire poses, and causes.
The language the news article uses is, in my view, misleading. "Ban" implies non-negotiable permanence and is often associated with a permanent restriction of personal freedoms, though the article, which lets face it most people don't read beyond headlines these days, is more akin to the temporary 'closure' to parts of public areas in forests and national parks, the same orders often issued by Australian fire authorities, to protect people from areas and conditions that are potentially (or are actually) dangerous to be in during elevated fire danger periods.
"Ban" sounds a lot worse than "Closure", though I also recognise this may be a legislative quirk, or confusion of terms: we have "Total Fire Ban" (government area wide, or statewide), "Park Fire Ban" and "Solid Fuel Fire Bans" (specific to individual parks, and forests respectively) that are both temporary but must be called 'bans', as those are the specific legislative tools given to us to manage ignitions.
Source: am a firefighter who has had to deal with these issues, during some very significant and internationally notable fire emergencies.
Not for months at a time, though.
Two quick statistics I found (both government-provided) state that 40% and 85% of wildfires, Canada and US respectively, are started by humans.
Wildfires are so bad in Canada right now. If access to Crown land has to be restricted to prevent it all from literally going up in flames, than so be it.
To me, having just been there, and witnessing some asshole behaviour from some of the campers, it makes total sense to close down the parks. There are not enough resources to deal with more fires there. Keep in mind these are not heavily populated provinces, so there are less resources to deal with out of control fires.
For context, the government of Canada provides https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/interactive-map to track wildfires. At time of submission, Nova Scotia is currently reporting a single wildfire — under control, at an area of 1.3 hectares. It seems there were a couple more when the story was posted. Even other Maritime provinces are currently dealing with much worse, to say nothing of the northern Prairies.