 |
Coming back meant diving straight into finishing year end books and final preparations for our Soldiers of Suicide—Solidarity Over Silence ceremony and day of healing. These events don't organize themselves, and getting it right for our veterans and military families weighs heavily on me.
But I've also been deeply troubled by what's unfolding in the Maritimes. Having family out there makes this personal, not just professional. As someone who works in travel and tourism, I'm watching these fire restrictions with growing alarm - not just for what they mean right now, but for the precedent they're setting.
From both a travel agent's perspective and someone who advocates for rural Canada and outdoor recreation, what I'm seeing doesn't add up. The inconsistencies between who gets banned and who gets exempted reveal priorities that have nothing to do with actual fire safety.
Here's what my research has uncovered, and why this matters for everyone who values both genuine safety measures and basic property rights.
Fire Bans Gone Wild: What's Really Happening in the Maritimes?
I've been watching these fire restrictions roll out across the Maritimes, and frankly, what I'm seeing doesn't make sense. Not from a fire safety perspective anyway.
PEI, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia have all locked down their forests. But when I look at who gets banned and who gets to keep operating, the whole public safety argument falls apart pretty quickly.
Last Year Should Have Taught Us Something
Remember the Tantallon fire? That disaster cost over $165 million. Entire neighborhoods got evacuated. People lost their homes. The emergency response bills were staggering.
But here's what the investigations found - and this is the part nobody wants to talk about. Most of these fires were started by people. Not lightning strikes. Not natural causes. People. And way too many were set deliberately.
So you'd think we'd focus on catching arsonists, right? Maybe improve how we manage our forests? Target the actual problems?
Nope. Instead, we got the same blanket bans as before, just bigger. Now they're telling property owners they can't walk on their own wooded land. Meanwhile, the activities that actually pose fire risks? Those get special exemptions.
The Rules That Don't Make Sense
Let me break down what's banned versus what's allowed, because this is where it gets ridiculous.
You can't do any of these things from August 6th through October 15th:
- Walk your dog on your own property if there are trees
- Hike trails you've been using safely for years
- Have a picnic in a provincial park
- Go fishing if it's near a forested area
- Take nature photographs
- Pretty much any outdoor recreation in wooded areas
Now, the banning of ATV use and all fireworks is 100% a smart and prudent thing to do.
Some of these restrictions are being imposed because of the selfish few who dispose of cigarettes unsafely or decide they're going to have that fire anyway and not put it out properly. The many are being punished for the actions of the few.
Some of these walking paths have had fires - but we need to ask the hard questions: Is it arson? Carelessly discarded cigarette butts? People who ignore fire bans and build fires anyway?
Generally speaking the real fire starters are:
- Arsonists who deliberately set fires for kicks or revenge
- Careless smokers who treat forests like ashtrays
- Campers who ignore restrictions and don't properly extinguish fires
- ATV riders with hot exhaust systems creating mobile fire hazards
- Industry
But these activities continue with government blessing:
- Commercial logging with all that heavy machinery
- Forestry operations using equipment that runs hot and throws sparks
- Train service (VIA Rail's "The Ocean" still runs from Halifax to Montreal right through these dangerous areas)
- Mining operations
- Industrial transportation through the same forests where hiking is banned
Does this make sense to anyone? If it's too dangerous for me to walk my dog, how is it safe for a logging crew to run chain saws and heavy equipment? How do trains get to keep running with all the sparks they shoot off their wheels and brakes?
The frustrating reality is this: The responsible majority gets punished because a selfish minority can't follow basic safety rules. Instead of targeting the actual fire-starting behaviors - the reckless ATV use, the carelessly tossed cigarettes, the deliberate arson - we get blanket bans that treat dog walkers like criminals while giving industrial fire hazards a free pass.
Have Your Property Rights Just Disappeared?
Here's what really gets me. Tim Houston's government now says you can't access wooded parts of your own property.
Think about that for a minute. You own land, you pay taxes on it, but government says you can't walk on it. Your dog needs exercise? Too bad, that's illegal now. Want to check your fence line? Criminal activity.
This isn't about Crown land anymore. This is about private property rights being suspended because of emergency declarations.
Where does this authority come from? What are the limits? How do you appeal? Nobody's explaining any of this.
The Neighbor Surveillance Program
The enforcement relies heavily on people reporting each other. Neighbors are supposed to call authorities if they see someone in the woods - even on private property.
I've seen what this creates in communities. People with old grudges suddenly have official revenge tools. Property disputes get weaponized. Everyone's watching everyone else instead of focusing on real problems.
Police resources get wasted responding to complaints about dog walking while actual fire risks go unaddressed. It's backwards.
Follow the Money
The exemption pattern tells you everything about priorities here.
Commercial operations continue because they generate revenue. Citizens get restricted because they're easy targets who don't have lobbyists.
If hiking is too dangerous, logging should be too. If dog walking poses fire risks, trains should be grounded. But that's not how this works.
Economic interests trump safety consistency every time. The message is clear: your recreation doesn't matter, but their profits do.
Forest Management Failures
The real problem isn't hikers. It's decades of poor forest management.
Dead trees pile up. Undergrowth doesn't get cleared properly. Fire prevention infrastructure gets minimal investment. Everything's reactive instead of proactive.
Real solutions exist. Controlled burns during safe periods. Strategic vegetation management. Better early detection systems. Professional prevention planning.
Instead, we blame the people who aren't causing the problem while ignoring the management failures that create tinderbox conditions.
Justice System Soft on Arson
Fire investigations keep finding deliberate arson, but our justice system treats it like shoplifting.
Light sentences. Minimal investigation resources. The public doesn't even know how big a role arson plays in forest fires. There's no deterrent effect.
These criminals terrorize entire regions, destroy public resources, endanger lives, and cost millions in emergency response. That should be treated like domestic terrorism, not petty crime.
We need serious sentences, better investigation units, full restitution requirements, and public awareness campaigns. Instead, we get hiking bans.
Legal Questions Nobody's Answering
These restrictions operate under emergency powers from the Forests Act. The scope is unprecedented - private property included, with penalties up to $25,000 and jail time.
The Constitution Foundation is already challenging this as government overreach. Property rights groups are raising constitutional questions. The whole thing reeks of authorities exceeding their mandate.
The end conditions are vague too - until conditions improve. Who decides that? What metrics apply? How long can emergency powers continue?
What Real Fire Prevention Looks Like
Effective fire prevention would target actual risks consistently you would think.
High-risk activities would face restrictions during extreme conditions - including industrial operations. Equipment inspections would be mandatory. Response protocols would focus on real threats.
Enforcement would target fire-starting behaviors, not recreational activities. Resources would go after known risks. Serious consequences would apply to reckless endangerment.
Community education would replace punishment. Clear safety guidelines would be provided. Risk assessments would be transparent. Regular reviews would measure effectiveness.
The Bigger Picture
This isn't just about fire bans. It's about government authority during declared emergencies.
Industrial exemptions while citizens face restrictions. Surveillance enforcement becoming normal. Emergency powers with no clear limits.
The precedent being set could expand to other climate emergencies easily. Heat restrictions. Air quality lockdowns. Carbon-based movement controls.
Once people accept government banning them from their own property during emergencies, expanding that becomes simple.
What Has to Change
Policy should be based on actual fire risks, not political convenience. Safety standards need consistent application. Scientific justification should be required for all restrictions.
Enforcement should focus on real fire threats, not neighbor complaints. Property rights need protection. Arson needs serious prosecution.
Forest management requires long-term investment. Prevention should replace reaction. Real solutions should address root causes.
The justice system should treat wildfire arson as serious crime. Investigation capabilities need enhancement. Deterrent sentences should be implemented.
Bottom Line
This whole thing comes down to one simple truth: they're going after the wrong people.
Real fire prevention?
That means catching the idiots who toss cigarettes out car windows and the criminals setting fires on purpose. It means actually managing our forests instead of letting dead trees pile up for decades. It means holding people accountable when they cause these disasters.
What we got instead after 2023's mess? More of the same failed approach, just bigger. Now they want your neighbors watching you walk your dog.
Here's what really gets me - they'll ban you from your own property while logging trucks keep rolling and trains keep sparking down the tracks. That tells you everything about who matters and who doesn't in this equation.
The forests are going to keep burning until somebody has the guts to address what's actually causing these fires. Poor management that's been ignored for years. Arsonists getting slapped on the wrist. Policies that protect the big players while punishing regular folks.
Photo from: https://www.forestns.ca/forest-ns-blog/forestry-a-proactive-approach-to-wildfire-prevention
Until that changes, we're just going to keep having this same conversation every fire season while our rights disappear and the forests keep burning.
Research Sources:
CBC Coverage:
- Forest bans in N.B. and N.S. spark backlash, confusion - CBC.ca
- N.S. tourists, operators pivoting amid drought-driven ban on forest activities - CBC.ca
Global News:
- Group threatens N.S. with legal action over grossly... - Global News
Legal Authority:
- Nova Scotia Forests Act: https://nslegislature.ca/sites/default/files/legc/statutes/forests.pdf
- Forests Act on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/laws/stat/rsns-1989-c-179/latest/rsns-1989-c-179.html
- Forest Fire Protection Regulations: https://novascotia.ca/just/regulations/regs/forestfire.htm
- Current Fire Restrictions: https://novascotia.ca/burnsafe/
#MaritimeFireBans #NovaScotia #NewBrunswick #PEI #GovernmentOverreach #PropertyRights #FireSafety #TimHouston #CanadianTourism #OutdoorRecreation #TravelAlert
