Time to commence stand down

[pentona]

Yes but is not safe yet. If a flood was at it's highest point and then dropped a foot or two it would be getting better or "calming". That doesn't mean the flood is over and neither is the fire risk as was just shown on Monday when a fire started near Naramata. Right near the KVR. If not for the fact that fire responders had easy and quick access the fire could have been devastating. That fire alone should be a sign that the back country is still NOT safe. It is still dry as a bone and there are currently very strong winds.
I feel no sympathy for the motorized back country community because they can't play with their toys. Too bad so sad.
Thankfully the leadership is doing the right thing. Keep it closed.

Here is my stance on that particular fire. Since it was highly UN-likely to have been a motorized vehicle that started the fire near the KVR (out of bounds area to them for years now) it is much more likely to have been a cyclist or pedestrian who did start it. Anyone with access to the areas in question are the problem; anyone.

Time to quit pinning the blame on anything motorized; most of them have not dared to be out since the ban took effect.

[JagXKR]

I did not pin the blame solely on motorized vehicles and their users. If you thought that then that's you're problem. The Naramata fire was an example that it's dry out there. Reading something else into that is wrong and I take offense. Another example of how dry (and windy) is the huge fire just across the border from Osoyoos. 30 acres due to a single house fire.

http://www.krem.com/news/local/okanogan ... /474351263

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/206541 ... ncy-ending

snip (my bold)
Prohibitions on off-road vehicles and campfires could soon be lifted, he said, but British Columbians will have to remain vigilant about watching for fire danger.

The "rights and freedoms" argument also applies to me and all other BC residents. Since I've heard no huge outcry from the public to re-open the back country I would guess most would be of my opinion. Glad the leadership is defending the rights and freedoms of the majority of citizens. Special interest groups seem to want whatever they want without regards to any dangers to others. Very sad.

[pentona]

I did not pin the blame solely on motorized vehicles and their users. If you thought that then that's you're problem. The Naramata fire was an example that it's dry out there. Reading something else into that is wrong and I take offense. Another example of how dry (and windy) is the huge fire just across the border from Osoyoos. 30 acres due to a single house fire.

http://www.krem.com/news/local/okanogan ... /474351263

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/206541 ... ncy-ending

snip (my bold)
Prohibitions on off-road vehicles and campfires could soon be lifted, he said, but British Columbians will have to remain vigilant about watching for fire danger.

The "rights and freedoms" argument also applies to me and all other BC residents. Since I've heard no huge outcry from the public to re-open the back country I would guess most would be of my opinion. Glad the leadership is defending the rights and freedoms of the majority of citizens. Special interest groups seem to want whatever they want without regards to any dangers to others. Very sad.

I understand your points but I cannot think of ONE single fire this year that has been pinned on having started from a motorized "off-road" type vehicle, but many many that were started by careless (or deliberate; we just don't know) people either on foot, bicycles, cars, whatever. The truth is that the back woods/trails should have been closed to everyone, period. Of course that wouldn't help in cases where fires start beside the paved highways but at least it would help. So, by prohibiting ATV's etc that only excludes one group and gives everyone else special priviledges when they are just as guilty as anyone. Think about it.

[TylerM4]

I understand your points but I cannot think of ONE single fire this year that has been pinned on having started from a motorized "off-road" type vehicle, but many many that were started by careless (or deliberate; we just don't know) people either on foot, bicycles, cars, whatever. The truth is that the back woods/trails should have been closed to everyone, period. Of course that wouldn't help in cases where fires start beside the paved highways but at least it would help. So, by prohibiting ATV's etc that only excludes one group and gives everyone else special priviledges when they are just as guilty as anyone. Think about it.

I'd like to know why you think it would have helped to ban back country access completely. I don't recall a single fire in the Okanagan this year that would have been prevented by a back country ban. Can you share some examples?

[pentona]

I'd like to know why you think it would have helped to ban back country access completely. I don't recall a single fire in the Okanagan this year that would have been prevented by a back country ban. Can you share some examples?

Sorry, I am not privy to that kind of fire info stats. Many fires, however started off the beaten roadways; some main hiking trails. Not ones that motorized vehicles would be on. Human caused; many fires. Some beside main highways of course but many were not.

[TylerM4]

Sorry, I am not privy to that kind of fire info stats. Many fires, however started off the beaten roadways; some main hiking trails. Not ones that motorized vehicles would be on. Human caused; many fires. Some beside main highways of course but many were not.

So you claim that many have been started in the back country, but can't actually cite a single one? Your argument appears to be falling apart here.

[Time4t]

States of Emergency declarations and prohibitions do not defend the rights and freedoms of people, they are a state imposed control mechanism that grant extraordinary powers to the government, police etc. that are scary to the informed.
They must be used with discretion, caution and accountability to the electorate. In recent years, there have been a lot of similar local declarations etc, that we must begin to question the legitimacy, frequency and use of same.

[JagXKR]

States of Emergency declarations and prohibitions do not defend the rights and freedoms of people, they are a state imposed control mechanism that grant extraordinary powers to the government, police etc. that are scary to the informed.
They must be used with discretion, caution and accountability to the electorate. In recent years, there have been a lot of similar local declarations etc, that we must begin to question the legitimacy, frequency and use of same.

They protect me from the idiots that would set my province on fire.
*removed*
My right to have a safe province outweighs your right to play.

[JagXKR]

I understand your points but I cannot think of ONE single fire this year that has been pinned on having started from a motorized "off-road" type vehicle, but many many that were started by careless (or deliberate; we just don't know) people either on foot, bicycles, cars, whatever. The truth is that the back woods/trails should have been closed to everyone, period. Of course that wouldn't help in cases where fires start beside the paved highways but at least it would help. So, by prohibiting ATV's etc that only excludes one group and gives everyone else special priviledges when they are just as guilty as anyone. Think about it.

How do you know that the people who set the fires did not get to where they were via an off road vehicle? You don't, neither do I but I do know that getting into the back country is far easier with a motor than without.
You will be able to play with your loud obnoxious toys soon enough. You are not the only people that have had a bad summer. Hikers like to hike for the view but this summer there was no view. Too much smoke. Most outdoor activities this year were hampered, *removed*

[Green-light]

Perhaps it's not an easy concept to grasp, but let us consider for a moment the possibility that the closures still in effect are not as much related to the risk of fires, but rather the risk of allowing stupid people to play in areas still vulnerable when so much manpower is already stretched thin, and the help provided during the top of the bell graph is headed elsewhere.

Hail to the run-on sentence!