How a woods ban to fight wildfires turned
some Canadiansthe right wingers into toddlersThere, fixed it for you.
I’m honestly a bit disappointed in the takes I’m seeing here in the comments. People literally repeating stuff reported by Alex Jones as if that’s in any way a trustworthy source.
I love the woods, that’s why I’m more than happy to avoid them during an ongoing crisis. Let the firefighters save the forests and not accidentally give them more work, y’know?
As highlighted in Gilmore’s video, it’s 100% the same energy as the reaction the right had to masking mandates.
I can only assume this is aimed at my comment.
People literally repeating stuff reported by Alex Jones as if that’s in any way a trustworthy source.
This is the first I’ve heard of the issue, I haven’t seen any other media reporting on it. This is purely my response to the claims presented in the video.
Let the firefighters save the forests and not accidentally give them more work, y’know?
You could make less work for firefighters by living in a concrete cell with no electricity, y’know?
We could also make less work for firefighters by collectively performing society-wide mass suicide, but I don’t see what that has to do with reasonable restrictions during a time of crisis.
I could have missed it but I don’t recall her video saying the restrictions were intended to be temporary.
Edit: anyone thinking this was a claim of permanent restrictions lacks reading comprehension
lol
You forgot your tin foil hat.
Only conspiracy nuts would entertain the possibility that this isn’t getting lifted whenever the wildfire risk goes down
So, “not temporary” is different from “permanent” how exactly?
I didn’t make a claim I just said it wasn’t in the linked video.
Define “crisis” though.
Are there active fires in the neighborhood? 100% agree.
Is there a drought and increased risk for fire? There are appropriate measures for that, no reason for a full ban.
Masking mandates were appropriate measures at that time, no full stay at home ban was needed. Your comparison makes no sense.
My definition of crisis is when there are multiple out of control forest fires active in my province. I think restricting activity in high-risk areas makes sense, especially when firefighting resources are already used up fighting existing fires elsewhere in the province.
Crown land, sure. But they even banned access to things like small city parks with trees. That’s just crazy to me, I’m sorry.
I am not up to date on the situation, so if there are out of control fires in progress, I definitely agree.
Comments here make it sound like it was just dry season with a high risk of fire, but no actual fires.
They’re the same people that would ignore the fire ban and made this ban necessary so I don’t feel bad for them.
We never should have developed self awareness, it was the worst thing to ever happen to this planet.
I can see how that would upset people though.
Try doing that in the Nordics and you’ll have an armed revolution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
Also like 85% of Finland is forests so it’d be really hard to enforce. How do they do it in Canada, with how huge it is?
It’s just for the region of Nova Scotia.
Some people are idiots and climate change is real, therefore you should lose access to nature is basically her argument.
Ignoring that people are unhappy losing access to spaces isn’t going to make those people happier about it.
Pretending there’s no reason to be angered and dismissing them out of hand won’t help anyone.
Some people are idiots and climate change is real, therefore you should lose access to nature is basically her argument.
That’s a very constructed take.
Idiots caused wildfires. They said “don’t be idiots in the woods, idiots” and the idiots went back in to be idiots. Now no one gets to use the woods because they don’t know who the idiots are and it’s not safe.
I wish I could say the West is different; we just have more woods.
The people she accused of being toddlers performed a non-violent protest against the loss of access to public lands.
Believe it or not you can regulate what people can do in a space without banning use of that space and it gets done all the time.
How do you propose we successfully enforce a no smoking ban in woods across an entire province?
theres also some suspicion about how just before the ban, they lifted another ban on uranium mining in the area. however, exploration can be a long and dubious process, fraught with things like “indigenous land rights” " private land rights" and “local consent” around things that potentially could cause contamination and ecological harm.
so if they wanted to send people in, without consent, to explore for uranium deposits, and not be seen doing so by locals/drone enthusiasts. this would be an excellent cover and time frame for them to do so.
after they have the data points they need, they will no longer have to sift through loads of local legal roadblocks, and just work on the areas specifically to have proven worthwhile reserves.
so either its just a really over the top local ban because of forest fire potential (which there certainly is) or they are using the current situation as a cover for exploration without consent.
its the PC party, so i wouldnt be surprised if there was some sort of backroom deal with some junior mining companies. theres currently no local bids, but i imagine that there will be come october or november once the dust settles. if thats the reason behind the unusually large fine for walking in the area right now.
And calling everyone who has a different opinion on how society should be governed is a “toddler” apparently.
It’s funny because fires have been started by people during the ban… so what has the ban accomplished in terms of actually preventing fires?
People who are the problem and starting fires will ignore the ban while responsible people who want to enjoy nature or walk home through the park are the ones punished.
And why are they trying to politicize this so hard and make this a left/right issue? It’s absolutely not.
Banning fires? Of course. Banning smoking and motor vehicles on trails and in woods? Absolutely. But walking through a park deserves a $25,000 fine? That is life ruining to some people and for what? For HIKING?? It’s crazy to me how widespread the support is for this and how much people are jumping on the government bandwagon. And to disagree with fining hikers you are an evil conservative fascist now? Give me a fucking break.
Yes, its dry as shit out there but to punish people who don’t drive, smoke, or have fires doesn’t make sense in my opinion and the mob mentality about this is so weird.
So someone can drive their car (the number one contributor to climate change) through the forest while ashing a cigarette out their window, corporations get to pollute and destroy the entirety of all ecosystems but a person walking through a park or by a lake is the real problem and must be punished…
People who are the problem and starting fires will ignore the ban while responsible people who want to enjoy nature or walk home through the park are the ones punished.
With this logic, we might as well stop having laws. Criminals always ignore them anyway.
And why are they trying to politicize this so hard
how much people are jumping on the government bandwagon
hmmmmm
fires have been started by people during the ban… so what has the ban accomplished in terms of actually preventing fires?
Banning fires? Of course. Banning smoking and motor vehicles on trails and in woods? Absolutely.
You’re almost there, if only some more dots are connected
