Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by misswaterfairy 313 days 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, and the available resources we have to manage new ignitions should they break out.

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.

2 comments

As a local to the area, a lot of the pushback is coming from the fact that this is not a closure of public parkland, but a restriction from entering any wooded area in the province - public or private.
Is the 'private' part being aggressively enforced? How many arrests (on private land)? I can't find any reports of any. Presumably Nova Scotians are voluntarily complying with the temporary ban.
> restriction from entering any wooded area in the province - public or private.

Huh, that's something new; admittedly I missed the 'private' bit. I can certainly understand why though.

Might be a cultural difference; we routinely have fire bans, parking bans, etc, and everyone knows that it's not permanent.