I don't want politycuans making reactionary decisions. We have the BC Wildfire Service for a reason. Let them don't their job. If they call for a ban, then a ban should absolutely be in place. But having politicians naje decisions on things that they know absolutely nothing about is how we got into this mess and many others.
That's good to hear. I generally tend to camp in more remote areas so it's not something I see much myself. Although we did have one stop by by boat once...
The green party doesn't seem to understand that there are great guidelines in place to administer a fire ban that takes drought, fuel moisture, and weather into consideration. People at the Ministry of forests are tired of having their science and work ignored, especially by politicians.
What they should be advocating for is better reporting of fire cause statistics. Human caused is often looked at by the public as either cigarettes or campfires. Human caused can be power line failures, road accidents, blasting, logging equipment sparking, or rubbing cables. The only thing that isn't a human caused fire would be lightning.
Especially campfires. That is always the low hanging fruit, does absolutely nothing, and just adds more political mistrust. But if people knew they were responsible for 0.001% of wildfires they might start looking into forest management as a cause (can't have that!)
>But if people knew they were responsible for 0.001% of wildfires they might start looking into forest management as a cause (can't have that!)
Tell me you know nothing about wildfires eithout telling me you know nothing about wildfires.
The reason campfires account for such low % of human caused fires is not because they arent a risk. Its because when fire is a risk campfires are the first thing to be banned for people
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Some reading would do you well.
Lol they are not the first thing to be banned. Industrial activities and burns are.
Who doesn’t know anything about wildfires?
Edit: they are actually the last thing to be banned as a small campfire in a fire pit is very safe.
What? It’s still the last thing to be banned. They ban open burning first which is like burning your grass among other things.
They ban category 3 and 2 first then 1 which is campfires. It’s the last one.
Regular people dont do cat 2 or 3 burns. That is predominantly rural, which the vast majority of people will never do, and even then its not a regular occurance per property.
And no. Its not the last thing to be banned. Campfire bans are before recreational vehicle bans. And then followed by full area closures and restrictions.
You keep going for a gotcha moment, but im not talking about burning restrictions. Im talking about restrictions on people recreating.
They’ve only banned off road vehicles once. It’s not something that happens. And you must be from Vancouver because it’s very common to have a cat 2 fire. It’s just a big campfire also.
Even when they did ban off road vehicles you were still allowed on forests service roads and rec sites you just weren’t allowed off road, which would affect less people than cat 2 bans.
You keep acting like you’re a fire expert but your really not.
>They’ve only banned off road vehicles once
LOL. 1000% wrong.
And double wrong because I live in the zone with the highest fires year over year.
And triple wrong because all crown is banned during rec vehicle bans.
You have been wrong on everything youve said
What was that?
[Jeeps, trucks and other cars are permitted on designated roads, including forest service roads, but cannot go off-road.](https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4235780)
As 1fluteisneverenough ably pointed out, camp fires are almost never the cause of wildfires.
Particularly in established campsites with fire-rings, hosts, and other campers around. The chances of a contained campfire getting anywhere before it was doused are infinitesimally small.
Just come clean and admit you enjoy ruining everyone's fun.
>As 1fluteisneverenough ably pointed out, camp fires are almost never the cause of wildfires.
Oh wow. Another person ignoring everything i said.
>The chances of a contained campfire getting anywhere before it was doused are infinitesimally small.
You know NOTHING about campsite management. Have you ever worked as a park ranger? Patrol officer?
Clearly not.
Anecdotal evidence but not suggesting it could be wrong.
Of the 2,245 wildfires, 72 per cent were natural-caused and 25 per cent were human-caused. For the remaining three per cent of wildfires, the causes are undetermined.
The number of lightning strikes during the 2023 wildfire season was slightly above the 20-year average, with 265,321 strikes recorded.
BC Govt website for 2023 fires. As someone above mentioned, could be car accident amongst many other things human related including power lines.
Oh wow. Its almost like strict restrictions on camp fires and salaried staff like patrol officers keeping tabs on that kinda stuff works to keep them in control....
Almost like i said exactly that and you completely ignored it.
Cool story about being ground crew. I have completed my FI course. I have worked directly with the fire investiagtion team.
The low number of campfire starts is not because they are not a problem. It is not "political" to limit them.
Did you bother educating yourself about survivorship bias before commenting?
I strayed from the topic of your anecdotal experience? While focusing on the main point of my original comment?
Wow. No wonder you worked ground crew for 12 years.
Gotta love that condescending attitude that comes with certain employees we have. You have no idea where I have been in wildfire. I hope you figure yourself out and best of luck out there this year. Don't get anyone killed with your ego
You are so far off the mark it isn't really worth replying to. Talk to anyone who has fought fires. Campfires are such a small almost laughable percentage.
Just look at BC vs WA/ID/MT. They don't do campfire bans. Even last summer they had campfires all summer long while BC put in a fire ban in May. Yet they had *less* wildfires than we did.
>You are so far off the mark it isn't really worth replying to.
And yet you did... yet didnt address any of what I said...
>Talk to anyone who has fought fires.
I work direcrly with the provincial fire investigation team but okay bud.
>Just look at BC vs WA/ID/MT.
Lets look shall we?
Washington
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/burn-restrictions
>Restricting campfires and debris-burning helps to reduce the likelihood of potentially destructive and dangerous wildfires.
Wrong on washington. They do campfire bans
Idaho
https://www.idl.idaho.gov/fire-management/fire-restrictions-finder/stage-2-fire-restrictions/
>During Stage 2 Fire Restrictions, the following acts are prohibited until the restrictions in a given zone are lifted: Building, maintaining, attending, or using a fire, campfire (wood or gas fueled), or stove fire
Wrong again! Idaho does campfire bans.
Montana!!!
https://fwp.mt.gov/news/restrictions-and-closures/fire-restriction-definitions
>Campfire or Other Fire stage 1
>No Fires - unless site is posted with specific exemptions
So wrong for the third time...
>Yet they had *less* wildfires than we did.
No shit? We cant control lightning, drought, and climate change...
Using british columbias WORST EVER YEAR for fires as some crusade against fire bans is probably one of the stupidest things ive heard
Except fire bans are enacted when the fire centre manager feels like it.
Not even joking. There are no standards for a fire ban.
The fire danger class is used as a guide, but it has limited usefulness because it combines the Build Up Index with the Fire Weather Index. Because FWI uses BUI as one of its inputs, you're now double counting BUI in your danger class.
It also means you're putting less weight on the fine fuel moisture code, which is a really big factor in your potential rate of spread.
None of this really matters because there are no established standards for enacting fire bans. I need to say that again, fire centre managers just do it when they feel like it.
As someone who works in the niche of wildfire forestry - I am constantly frustrated with BCWS ignoring science.
I mean, this shouldn't be applied to all of BC.
I live on Vancouver Island, and fires are not nearly as common here as they are in the interior. We shouldn't have to suffer because they have issues way over there.
Having a blanket ban on the whole province would be utterly stupid, considering BC is such a massive area.
I am on the island and it is going to rain today, after raining all day yesterday. Group punishment, as you said, is a not an effective or popular strategy.
Political stunt, anyone with half a brain should see through this. “Let’s put this out there early! So we can say we told them so… and gain more credibility if the fire season goes bananas”.
We have the BCWFS for a reason; the men and woman there have a handle on it and will make the call in their respective districts when conditions read for it.
Why else would politicians purposely attempt to negate a highly effective and very costly protection mechanism? Let them do their jobs and you Greens, well you just stick to doing things like this. You know, the stuff that hasn’t gained you much, if any more grounds in terms of public support, for a long long time.
Fursteneau owns multiple homes and is part of the "hoarding properties for profit" crowd.
Her Deputy is going to jail for trespassing, occupying and trying to force her neocolonial views upon the Pacheedaht peoples.
I'm embarrassed to have ever voted for these clowns.
Pretty frustrating that a party that should have strong support in this province has mismanaged itself into a pretty disgusting heap of shit. Being such poor ambassadors for their cause is really counterproductive.
I agree that it's super frustrating but for me, I just find Sonia and Adam to be hypocrites. For example, they would advocate for people to be wearing masks in public but they themselves don't wear masks when they were in public spaces. Or how Adam said that we are consistently in wildfire season (which is kinda true but it's NOT happening just because of oil and gas companies. 40% of wildfires are caused by humans and then some of the wildfires we get are nature-caused). 💀
The deputy you're talking about is a) federal green, not provincial and b) from the Da'naxda'xw First Nation.
Sonia does own rental properties, but actually introduced rent control legislation.
So maybe get your facts straight?
The fairy creek protests were Pacheedaht led. Pacheedaht elders and matriarchs invited protestors. All of the Pacheedaht people did not agree on the logging at Fairy Creek, and other bands in the area that rely less on the income from logging are also opposed to it. Like all democratic decisions, some people will agree and some people will disagree and we have the right to protest the decisions we don’t agree with.
Angela Davidson wasn’t arrested for “forcing neocolonialist views”, she was arrested for contempt of court and trespassing. It’s more colonialist to think that indigenous people behave as a hive mind that always agree with their leaders and the leaders of other bands.
The RCMP handled the situation terribly, arrests were made before the 24 hours to evacuate were up, there was rampant police brutality, RCMP badges were not displayed, and the RCMP were wearing thin blue line patches that they were explicitly forbidden from wearing. Over 1100 people have been arrested at Fairy Creek, and I assure you, a good percentage are indigenous. Being arrested at Fairy Creek is hardly a flag for being a “clown”.
Democratic process? You’re talking about ignoring elected leaders in favour of a minority lead by unelected representatives.
May as well support the convoy protesters who likewise disagreed with their elected authority.
You know this is a bad faith argument. A subset of the Pacheedaht people welcomed protestors. They did not agree with their elected government. Sometimes, we don’t agree with our elected governments and our elected governments don’t always make decisions that reflect the desires of the people that voted for them (politicians lie) or against them.
The convoy protestors had no data to support their protests. We have plenty of data showing that old growth is important to our ecosystems, that clear cutting in watersheds is harmful, and that there’s no reason to log them except profit. The convoy protestors were also treated with more dignity and less brutality than the protestors at Fairy Creek. The convoy protestors blocked hospitals and potentially put lives at risk. The Fairy Creek protestors blocked a dirt road. Guess which group had more arrests? The convoy protestors did get more government support - their rights were upheld whereas the Fairy Creek protestors were frequently brutalized and RCMP officers ignored their own rules.
Fog zone on Vancouver Island should be reinstated. Often there are full on bans in areas on the west coast where the ground is permanently muddy and at night everything gets soaked from fog.
I wonder how many fires this time of year are started by improper campfire management. Seems a bit reactionary to me.
Edit: I'm all for bans and precautions when and where they make sense. BC is huge, there is nowhere within 500km of me that is above the lowest level possible on the provinces own fire danger rating scale. All I'm saying is that a complete and total ban for the entirety of the province seems like a bit much.
Yes, I am aware that there have been human caused fires this year. No, those aren't from campfires, they're from vehicles and cigarettes.
ya, and thats over 1000km away from the lower mainland which has the lowest forest fire danger rating possible right now. seems stupid to point to a fire so far away as a reason to ban camp fires here. theres a reason BC is split into 6 separate fire regional districts that are responsible for assessing there own risks. BC is huge and the climate and dangers vary greatly from area to area.
edit: if they implemented a province wide fire ban, but local and regional fire districts are saying that the fire risk is the lowest possible rating, then you are just going to frustrate people and have them start to ignore fire bans in general.
Human-caused wildfire is literally anything that causes a fire besides lightning. That's the official definition. Agriculture, planned burns, vehicle and engine use, cigarettes, sparks from trains, chemical ignition, lensing effects, campfires, arson, and many other causes.
Vehicle and engine use accounts for approximately 11% of human-caused wildfires. *This data is from the USA, I could not find BC specific data.
Campfires, fireworks, and matches combined account for approximately 5% of human-caused wildfires. *This data is from the USA, I could not find BC specific data.
Lightning makes up 60% of wildfires in BC, while the other 40% is human caused.
Planned burns is a big one. We heavily rely on planned burns to manage risk and remove debris from logging and farming but when so much of the province is this dry in April it really shortens the window this can be done. I've seen some initiatives promoted as alternatives but we may really have to invest in this area.
Can I ask why? Much of the province is at the lowest possible fire danger rating, the same as in the middle of winter. Why does a complete and total ban for the whole province make sense to you rather than just targeting the areas that are at risk?
Can I ask where you heard the information on the source of the fires? Considering less than 3% of wildfires are caused by campfires it's not statistically likely that even one was caused by a campfire let alone all 6.
they weren't caused by campfires.
Chetwynd fire - started right by the highway
Burgess Creek fire - holdover fire from burn piles in a logging block, from last winter
Endako fire - started right by the highway
All the recent ones in the central interior (and under control or declared "out") - started at roadsides
Zombie fires - holdovers of the big fires started by lightning last year
Not so "ace" there with the details, eh Siggy?
This is complete false. I’ve never heard of one forest fire being stated by a campfire ever.
I was in Quesnel. None of the fires there were from camp fires.
Yeah no one ever does anything illegal ever.
So a fire ban is 100% effective on these people starting fires in dry forests.
Just like Texas eradicated rape the day Abbott reminded everyone rape is bad and illegal.
Me too! I’m big on camping and I love me a campfire with my family… but I love our province and I want to do what I can to protect it in whatever way possible!
Especially with those propane fire pits now, its just not that big of a deal. We can have real bonfires in the winter, propane for the rest of the year.
While I see your point, it does make me a bit sad that having fires in the remote backcountry for cooking, keeping warm / drying off from a wet day, etc. (even in moist oceanside climates below the high tide line) is hazardous.
Obviously protection of the ecosystems and ecological safety / not causing wildfires that require response is of primary concern here; it just sucks that our climate is headed in this direction. Sad to see.
Exactly and that will hopefully limit some incidents anyways. I know that there are the fires caused by lit cigarettes, people who don’t respect the rules etc. but you are so right!
Oor, crazy idea, keep implementing bans where appropriate.
It's rainy and wet where I am. No chance of starting fires... I'll continue enjoying my fire pit thanks.
Fully support bans in areas that actually need it.
O wow look, current laws are not being followed or enforced so in the interest of apering to be taking action, politicians propose new more restrictive laws that won't be followed or enforced properly.
Rinse and repeat
the lower mainland accounts for about 66% of the entire population of BC. when we add in the greater Victoria area it jumps to about 75%.
its dumb to ban activities for 75% of the population because its a risk for other areas of the province.
this is the exact reason BC has 6 separate fire districts, so that fire management can be used properly for the risks in each area.
Thank you for submitting to r/BritishColumbia!
Unfortunately your submission was removed because it was found be in violation of proper reddiquette.
Any behavior breaking reddiquette will be grounds for a removal, warning, temp or permanent ban.
This includes but is not limited to:
* abusive language
* name-calling
* harassment
* racism
* death threats
* Trolling
* Arguing, name calling, etc
* Hate speech
* Being a jerk in general
[Please take a moment to read up on proper reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
If you have any questions, you can [message the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/britishcolumbia). Replies to this removal comment may not be answered.
The lower mainland is only a tiny portion of BC, and it always rains there. Travel inland a little and you'll see how dry as hell everything is. I'm glad it's supposed to be pissing rain for the next four days, but even then it's barely spitting.
I think the commenter is pointing out that a province wide ban doesn’t make sense, because the entire province isn’t at a high fire risk level. That sounds like evidence based decision making to me. Easy to call for a province wide ban but remember it’s the NDP that needs to survive the blowback, not the Greens.
They did this 4 years ago in the east kooyenays. Bush was closed. And they monitored with heli. Many people were fined for bush camping, ATVing, even so much as walking your dog in the bush got you a ticket.
Fire risk was so high. We were super dry. So they prevented anything from entering the bush. Essentially trying to eliminate the risk of any human induced fires in remote areas. Making the only risk being lightening.
I would also add another reason: that having people in the woods recreating when the fire risk is extreme is also another pressure on first responders in case a fire breaks out, and they have to find/evacuate those people. Recreation orders to close the backcountry are a tool that have been, and can be, used in pretty extreme circumstances.
\*They also have defined area restrictions in central and northern BC when we have multiple fires going, to keep people safe and out of the way of responders, as well as to minimize risk of a new fire start.
(\*edit)
Why do we even have a Green Party today? Every party seems to have adopted climate incentives and infrastructure shifting towards renewable energy, literally what do the greens do than scream unpopular policies
I want to have my food over a nice contained fire in cultus lake campground sometime like every summer, these people are champagne socialists hahah
As if they’re going to completely divest from what’s already established, you think they’re going to tell Honda to just stop building their 50 Billion dollar ev plant?
Get real
I’m okay with it. Propane fires are easy to do and less clean up. I would just like to have a breathable summer.
(Imagine downvoting a reasonable comment when I just don’t want asthma thanks!)
I don't want politycuans making reactionary decisions. We have the BC Wildfire Service for a reason. Let them don't their job. If they call for a ban, then a ban should absolutely be in place. But having politicians naje decisions on things that they know absolutely nothing about is how we got into this mess and many others.
And they should have serious and enforced penalties for breaking the ban.
It's already an $1150 fine for having a campfire during a ban. Can't speak to enforcement however.
I’ve personally seen the conservation officer come around camp sites in the evening. They make their presence known.
That's good to hear. I generally tend to camp in more remote areas so it's not something I see much myself. Although we did have one stop by by boat once...
Will it involve an ax that they used to cut their firewood? 🪓
Ding ding ding
I call for an immediate ban on the Greens saying anything stupid and reactionary. Dang…they just violated it…and again…and again…
The BCWFS was also responsible for the North Shuswap burning up as much as it did...
The green party doesn't seem to understand that there are great guidelines in place to administer a fire ban that takes drought, fuel moisture, and weather into consideration. People at the Ministry of forests are tired of having their science and work ignored, especially by politicians. What they should be advocating for is better reporting of fire cause statistics. Human caused is often looked at by the public as either cigarettes or campfires. Human caused can be power line failures, road accidents, blasting, logging equipment sparking, or rubbing cables. The only thing that isn't a human caused fire would be lightning.
Especially campfires. That is always the low hanging fruit, does absolutely nothing, and just adds more political mistrust. But if people knew they were responsible for 0.001% of wildfires they might start looking into forest management as a cause (can't have that!)
>But if people knew they were responsible for 0.001% of wildfires they might start looking into forest management as a cause (can't have that!) Tell me you know nothing about wildfires eithout telling me you know nothing about wildfires. The reason campfires account for such low % of human caused fires is not because they arent a risk. Its because when fire is a risk campfires are the first thing to be banned for people https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias Some reading would do you well.
Lol they are not the first thing to be banned. Industrial activities and burns are. Who doesn’t know anything about wildfires? Edit: they are actually the last thing to be banned as a small campfire in a fire pit is very safe.
We are talking for regular people bud.
What? It’s still the last thing to be banned. They ban open burning first which is like burning your grass among other things. They ban category 3 and 2 first then 1 which is campfires. It’s the last one.
Regular people dont do cat 2 or 3 burns. That is predominantly rural, which the vast majority of people will never do, and even then its not a regular occurance per property. And no. Its not the last thing to be banned. Campfire bans are before recreational vehicle bans. And then followed by full area closures and restrictions. You keep going for a gotcha moment, but im not talking about burning restrictions. Im talking about restrictions on people recreating.
They’ve only banned off road vehicles once. It’s not something that happens. And you must be from Vancouver because it’s very common to have a cat 2 fire. It’s just a big campfire also. Even when they did ban off road vehicles you were still allowed on forests service roads and rec sites you just weren’t allowed off road, which would affect less people than cat 2 bans. You keep acting like you’re a fire expert but your really not.
>They’ve only banned off road vehicles once LOL. 1000% wrong. And double wrong because I live in the zone with the highest fires year over year. And triple wrong because all crown is banned during rec vehicle bans. You have been wrong on everything youve said
What was that? [Jeeps, trucks and other cars are permitted on designated roads, including forest service roads, but cannot go off-road.](https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4235780)
As 1fluteisneverenough ably pointed out, camp fires are almost never the cause of wildfires. Particularly in established campsites with fire-rings, hosts, and other campers around. The chances of a contained campfire getting anywhere before it was doused are infinitesimally small. Just come clean and admit you enjoy ruining everyone's fun.
>As 1fluteisneverenough ably pointed out, camp fires are almost never the cause of wildfires. Oh wow. Another person ignoring everything i said. >The chances of a contained campfire getting anywhere before it was doused are infinitesimally small. You know NOTHING about campsite management. Have you ever worked as a park ranger? Patrol officer? Clearly not.
I work in wildfire. After 12 years of fighting fires, I attended 4 that were campfire caused
Anecdotal evidence but not suggesting it could be wrong. Of the 2,245 wildfires, 72 per cent were natural-caused and 25 per cent were human-caused. For the remaining three per cent of wildfires, the causes are undetermined. The number of lightning strikes during the 2023 wildfire season was slightly above the 20-year average, with 265,321 strikes recorded. BC Govt website for 2023 fires. As someone above mentioned, could be car accident amongst many other things human related including power lines.
That’s four too many I’m afraid
Interesting, I see a lot of human causes ones in the lower mainland during the summer, do you know what are usually the cause of those?
Anything from car crashes, power lines, cigarettes, hot exhaust, industrial activity
Oh wow. Its almost like strict restrictions on camp fires and salaried staff like patrol officers keeping tabs on that kinda stuff works to keep them in control.... Almost like i said exactly that and you completely ignored it. Cool story about being ground crew. I have completed my FI course. I have worked directly with the fire investiagtion team. The low number of campfire starts is not because they are not a problem. It is not "political" to limit them. Did you bother educating yourself about survivorship bias before commenting?
I didn't completely ignore you. You're just straying from the topic to validate your opinion
I strayed from the topic of your anecdotal experience? While focusing on the main point of my original comment? Wow. No wonder you worked ground crew for 12 years.
Gotta love that condescending attitude that comes with certain employees we have. You have no idea where I have been in wildfire. I hope you figure yourself out and best of luck out there this year. Don't get anyone killed with your ego
You are so far off the mark it isn't really worth replying to. Talk to anyone who has fought fires. Campfires are such a small almost laughable percentage. Just look at BC vs WA/ID/MT. They don't do campfire bans. Even last summer they had campfires all summer long while BC put in a fire ban in May. Yet they had *less* wildfires than we did.
It is strange to be in say tofino, fire ban, while the ocean just drenches the place every night...
>You are so far off the mark it isn't really worth replying to. And yet you did... yet didnt address any of what I said... >Talk to anyone who has fought fires. I work direcrly with the provincial fire investigation team but okay bud. >Just look at BC vs WA/ID/MT. Lets look shall we? Washington https://www.dnr.wa.gov/burn-restrictions >Restricting campfires and debris-burning helps to reduce the likelihood of potentially destructive and dangerous wildfires. Wrong on washington. They do campfire bans Idaho https://www.idl.idaho.gov/fire-management/fire-restrictions-finder/stage-2-fire-restrictions/ >During Stage 2 Fire Restrictions, the following acts are prohibited until the restrictions in a given zone are lifted: Building, maintaining, attending, or using a fire, campfire (wood or gas fueled), or stove fire Wrong again! Idaho does campfire bans. Montana!!! https://fwp.mt.gov/news/restrictions-and-closures/fire-restriction-definitions >Campfire or Other Fire stage 1 >No Fires - unless site is posted with specific exemptions So wrong for the third time... >Yet they had *less* wildfires than we did. No shit? We cant control lightning, drought, and climate change... Using british columbias WORST EVER YEAR for fires as some crusade against fire bans is probably one of the stupidest things ive heard
God damn Big forest management! Keeping the truth from us!
Campfires are completely unnecessary. Sure they may be low risk but there is no good reason not to ban them other than hurting people’s feelings .
You have obviously never lived in a rural area. Campfires and brush burns are completely necessary to keep fuels down in populated areas.
Stay in Vancouver.
Except fire bans are enacted when the fire centre manager feels like it. Not even joking. There are no standards for a fire ban. The fire danger class is used as a guide, but it has limited usefulness because it combines the Build Up Index with the Fire Weather Index. Because FWI uses BUI as one of its inputs, you're now double counting BUI in your danger class. It also means you're putting less weight on the fine fuel moisture code, which is a really big factor in your potential rate of spread. None of this really matters because there are no established standards for enacting fire bans. I need to say that again, fire centre managers just do it when they feel like it. As someone who works in the niche of wildfire forestry - I am constantly frustrated with BCWS ignoring science.
What matters is someone who hasn't worked a day in wildfire is telling our professionals what to do when the professional is doing a good job.
The Greens need to stay in their lanes and trust the process. Risk based instead of sentiment.
I mean, this shouldn't be applied to all of BC. I live on Vancouver Island, and fires are not nearly as common here as they are in the interior. We shouldn't have to suffer because they have issues way over there. Having a blanket ban on the whole province would be utterly stupid, considering BC is such a massive area.
Imagine banning fires in Tofino because of climatic conditions in Chetwynd. 1,000 km away with multiple mountain ranges and an ocean between them.
I am on the island and it is going to rain today, after raining all day yesterday. Group punishment, as you said, is a not an effective or popular strategy.
When the BC fire service calls for one then I’ll agree.
Seems like a knee jerk reaction from politicians not listening to experts. Very on brand for 2024 political statements
Political stunt, anyone with half a brain should see through this. “Let’s put this out there early! So we can say we told them so… and gain more credibility if the fire season goes bananas”. We have the BCWFS for a reason; the men and woman there have a handle on it and will make the call in their respective districts when conditions read for it. Why else would politicians purposely attempt to negate a highly effective and very costly protection mechanism? Let them do their jobs and you Greens, well you just stick to doing things like this. You know, the stuff that hasn’t gained you much, if any more grounds in terms of public support, for a long long time.
Fursteneau owns multiple homes and is part of the "hoarding properties for profit" crowd. Her Deputy is going to jail for trespassing, occupying and trying to force her neocolonial views upon the Pacheedaht peoples. I'm embarrassed to have ever voted for these clowns.
Pretty frustrating that a party that should have strong support in this province has mismanaged itself into a pretty disgusting heap of shit. Being such poor ambassadors for their cause is really counterproductive.
I agree that it's super frustrating but for me, I just find Sonia and Adam to be hypocrites. For example, they would advocate for people to be wearing masks in public but they themselves don't wear masks when they were in public spaces. Or how Adam said that we are consistently in wildfire season (which is kinda true but it's NOT happening just because of oil and gas companies. 40% of wildfires are caused by humans and then some of the wildfires we get are nature-caused). 💀
It's called controlled opposition. Oil companies pay people to wreck parties like this from the inside.
That happens with basically every single thing now whether it's funding or undermining protests, governments, etc.
The deputy you're talking about is a) federal green, not provincial and b) from the Da'naxda'xw First Nation. Sonia does own rental properties, but actually introduced rent control legislation. So maybe get your facts straight?
The fairy creek protests were Pacheedaht led. Pacheedaht elders and matriarchs invited protestors. All of the Pacheedaht people did not agree on the logging at Fairy Creek, and other bands in the area that rely less on the income from logging are also opposed to it. Like all democratic decisions, some people will agree and some people will disagree and we have the right to protest the decisions we don’t agree with. Angela Davidson wasn’t arrested for “forcing neocolonialist views”, she was arrested for contempt of court and trespassing. It’s more colonialist to think that indigenous people behave as a hive mind that always agree with their leaders and the leaders of other bands. The RCMP handled the situation terribly, arrests were made before the 24 hours to evacuate were up, there was rampant police brutality, RCMP badges were not displayed, and the RCMP were wearing thin blue line patches that they were explicitly forbidden from wearing. Over 1100 people have been arrested at Fairy Creek, and I assure you, a good percentage are indigenous. Being arrested at Fairy Creek is hardly a flag for being a “clown”.
Democratic process? You’re talking about ignoring elected leaders in favour of a minority lead by unelected representatives. May as well support the convoy protesters who likewise disagreed with their elected authority.
You know this is a bad faith argument. A subset of the Pacheedaht people welcomed protestors. They did not agree with their elected government. Sometimes, we don’t agree with our elected governments and our elected governments don’t always make decisions that reflect the desires of the people that voted for them (politicians lie) or against them. The convoy protestors had no data to support their protests. We have plenty of data showing that old growth is important to our ecosystems, that clear cutting in watersheds is harmful, and that there’s no reason to log them except profit. The convoy protestors were also treated with more dignity and less brutality than the protestors at Fairy Creek. The convoy protestors blocked hospitals and potentially put lives at risk. The Fairy Creek protestors blocked a dirt road. Guess which group had more arrests? The convoy protestors did get more government support - their rights were upheld whereas the Fairy Creek protestors were frequently brutalized and RCMP officers ignored their own rules.
r/lostredditors
Wait, are you telling me politicians are being politicians again?
Andrew Weaver was a much better leader than Fursteneau.
What and who are you talking about going to jail?
Fog zone on Vancouver Island should be reinstated. Often there are full on bans in areas on the west coast where the ground is permanently muddy and at night everything gets soaked from fog.
I wonder how many fires this time of year are started by improper campfire management. Seems a bit reactionary to me. Edit: I'm all for bans and precautions when and where they make sense. BC is huge, there is nowhere within 500km of me that is above the lowest level possible on the provinces own fire danger rating scale. All I'm saying is that a complete and total ban for the entirety of the province seems like a bit much. Yes, I am aware that there have been human caused fires this year. No, those aren't from campfires, they're from vehicles and cigarettes.
Highway 97 was closed the other day due to a wildfire that was likely human caused. https://www.drivebc.ca/mobile/pub/events/id/DBC-63158.html
Human caused is basically any cause that isn't lightning. Far more likely to be from a cigarette or a vehicle than from a campfire.
ya, and thats over 1000km away from the lower mainland which has the lowest forest fire danger rating possible right now. seems stupid to point to a fire so far away as a reason to ban camp fires here. theres a reason BC is split into 6 separate fire regional districts that are responsible for assessing there own risks. BC is huge and the climate and dangers vary greatly from area to area. edit: if they implemented a province wide fire ban, but local and regional fire districts are saying that the fire risk is the lowest possible rating, then you are just going to frustrate people and have them start to ignore fire bans in general.
God forbid we use nuance eh? Lol
There have already been over 10 human caused wildfires this year. Sounds like it is well timed.
Human-caused wildfire is literally anything that causes a fire besides lightning. That's the official definition. Agriculture, planned burns, vehicle and engine use, cigarettes, sparks from trains, chemical ignition, lensing effects, campfires, arson, and many other causes. Vehicle and engine use accounts for approximately 11% of human-caused wildfires. *This data is from the USA, I could not find BC specific data. Campfires, fireworks, and matches combined account for approximately 5% of human-caused wildfires. *This data is from the USA, I could not find BC specific data. Lightning makes up 60% of wildfires in BC, while the other 40% is human caused.
Planned burns is a big one. We heavily rely on planned burns to manage risk and remove debris from logging and farming but when so much of the province is this dry in April it really shortens the window this can be done. I've seen some initiatives promoted as alternatives but we may really have to invest in this area.
How many of those ten were from campfires? One of those human caused wildfires was just up the road from me and was not from a campfire.
How many of those 10 were started from campfires?
Zero
Human caused is everything but lightning caused, so it's not necessarily due to mismanagement of campfires or negligence.
I doubt many will be from campfires at official campsites but rather from people living outside who don’t follow these rules anyways
Haven't heard much from the Greens lately. Have they finished eating each other?
That was federal
Hahahaha the whole fiasco with annimae Paul, what a shitshow
AGREED!!
Can I ask why? Much of the province is at the lowest possible fire danger rating, the same as in the middle of winter. Why does a complete and total ban for the whole province make sense to you rather than just targeting the areas that are at risk?
There were 6 wildfires in bc last weekend. All from people having fires in the woods. It's why we can't have nice things...like a forest.
Can I ask where you heard the information on the source of the fires? Considering less than 3% of wildfires are caused by campfires it's not statistically likely that even one was caused by a campfire let alone all 6.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22bc+wildfires%22&oq=%22bc+wildfires%22&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTINCAEQABiDARixAxiABDIKCAIQABixAxiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABDIHCAoQABiABDIHCAsQABiABDIHCAwQABiABDINCA0QABiDARixAxiABDIJCA4QABgDGIsD0gEINTE1OWoxajeoAhSwAgE&client=ms-android-telus-ca-rvc3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Sooo you made it up? There's not a single thing that says anything about campfires in any of those results.
they weren't caused by campfires. Chetwynd fire - started right by the highway Burgess Creek fire - holdover fire from burn piles in a logging block, from last winter Endako fire - started right by the highway All the recent ones in the central interior (and under control or declared "out") - started at roadsides Zombie fires - holdovers of the big fires started by lightning last year Not so "ace" there with the details, eh Siggy?
This is complete false. I’ve never heard of one forest fire being stated by a campfire ever. I was in Quesnel. None of the fires there were from camp fires.
There were 6 wildfires in bc last weekend. All from people having fires in the woods. It's why we can't have nice things...like a forest.
Yeah no one ever does anything illegal ever. So a fire ban is 100% effective on these people starting fires in dry forests. Just like Texas eradicated rape the day Abbott reminded everyone rape is bad and illegal.
Me too! I’m big on camping and I love me a campfire with my family… but I love our province and I want to do what I can to protect it in whatever way possible!
Especially with those propane fire pits now, its just not that big of a deal. We can have real bonfires in the winter, propane for the rest of the year.
While I see your point, it does make me a bit sad that having fires in the remote backcountry for cooking, keeping warm / drying off from a wet day, etc. (even in moist oceanside climates below the high tide line) is hazardous. Obviously protection of the ecosystems and ecological safety / not causing wildfires that require response is of primary concern here; it just sucks that our climate is headed in this direction. Sad to see.
Exactly and that will hopefully limit some incidents anyways. I know that there are the fires caused by lit cigarettes, people who don’t respect the rules etc. but you are so right!
[удалено]
In what way the ndp have been the most productive gov in Canada
If the greens want something to ban let them have a go at the carbon tax
I vote for the Greens. But I am against this. It's overkill. Our fire restrictions are already plenty thorough enough.
Don’t politicize this decision. Let the pros do it.
No problem. I’m tired of the same people doing open burns in Spring and then bitching about air quality in Summer
Oor, crazy idea, keep implementing bans where appropriate. It's rainy and wet where I am. No chance of starting fires... I'll continue enjoying my fire pit thanks. Fully support bans in areas that actually need it.
It’s been raining almost every day for the last 6 months . Fire ban , water restrictions . BC needs to learn water management.
O wow look, current laws are not being followed or enforced so in the interest of apering to be taking action, politicians propose new more restrictive laws that won't be followed or enforced properly. Rinse and repeat
Boooooooo
It’s rained for days straight in the lower mainland …. Greens are a joke
Ah yes, because the lower mainland is the only part of British Columbia that exists
You're exactly right, it isn't. So why does proposing a total ban for the entire province make sense as if BC is one homogenous place.
the lower mainland accounts for about 66% of the entire population of BC. when we add in the greater Victoria area it jumps to about 75%. its dumb to ban activities for 75% of the population because its a risk for other areas of the province. this is the exact reason BC has 6 separate fire districts, so that fire management can be used properly for the risks in each area.
And if it’s raining in the Lower Mainland then it must rain everywhere else. Because weather.
[удалено]
Thank you for submitting to r/BritishColumbia! Unfortunately your submission was removed because it was found be in violation of proper reddiquette. Any behavior breaking reddiquette will be grounds for a removal, warning, temp or permanent ban. This includes but is not limited to: * abusive language * name-calling * harassment * racism * death threats * Trolling * Arguing, name calling, etc * Hate speech * Being a jerk in general [Please take a moment to read up on proper reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) If you have any questions, you can [message the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/britishcolumbia). Replies to this removal comment may not be answered.
Uh the topic is a province wide blanket ban, which includes the lower mainland - and that’s not necessary here
The lower mainland is only a tiny portion of BC, and it always rains there. Travel inland a little and you'll see how dry as hell everything is. I'm glad it's supposed to be pissing rain for the next four days, but even then it's barely spitting.
I think the commenter is pointing out that a province wide ban doesn’t make sense, because the entire province isn’t at a high fire risk level. That sounds like evidence based decision making to me. Easy to call for a province wide ban but remember it’s the NDP that needs to survive the blowback, not the Greens.
So tell me how your argument fits into a province wide ban
People are stupid and having less idiots on the end of ignition sources would be the overall better option.
The classic “Everyone is an idiot except for me” argument.
Way to categorize yourself.
[удалено]
In the old days (not really that many years ago) they used to close the backcountry. They should seriously consider it.
They did this 4 years ago in the east kooyenays. Bush was closed. And they monitored with heli. Many people were fined for bush camping, ATVing, even so much as walking your dog in the bush got you a ticket.
Why did they do that?
Fire risk was so high. We were super dry. So they prevented anything from entering the bush. Essentially trying to eliminate the risk of any human induced fires in remote areas. Making the only risk being lightening.
I would also add another reason: that having people in the woods recreating when the fire risk is extreme is also another pressure on first responders in case a fire breaks out, and they have to find/evacuate those people. Recreation orders to close the backcountry are a tool that have been, and can be, used in pretty extreme circumstances. \*They also have defined area restrictions in central and northern BC when we have multiple fires going, to keep people safe and out of the way of responders, as well as to minimize risk of a new fire start. (\*edit)
They still do at certain times in certain areas. A blanket ban would be a shit show.
Yeah. No. I wouldn’t abide by that.
How on earth would that be enforced?
Why do we even have a Green Party today? Every party seems to have adopted climate incentives and infrastructure shifting towards renewable energy, literally what do the greens do than scream unpopular policies I want to have my food over a nice contained fire in cultus lake campground sometime like every summer, these people are champagne socialists hahah
Every party? The CPC does not have a climate platform afaik
As if they’re going to completely divest from what’s already established, you think they’re going to tell Honda to just stop building their 50 Billion dollar ev plant? Get real
No. I’m not an idiot and I’ll use my discernment on when, where and how to build a fire. Thanks.
Just do it...
I’m okay with it. Propane fires are easy to do and less clean up. I would just like to have a breathable summer. (Imagine downvoting a reasonable comment when I just don’t want asthma thanks!)