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.
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.
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.
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…
With this logic, we might as well stop having laws. Criminals always ignore them anyway.
hmmmmm
You’re almost there, if only some more dots are connected