Ignorant People Busted Leaving Closed Park

[johnny24]

So then anyone walking their dogs are harmless? Don't smoke, entertain thoughts of a campfire at all? How can you tell?

All your answers are in previous posts, but I think it's pretty easy to distinguish between a person walking a dog and a person trying to start a fire.

[ifwisheswerehorses]

I don't have any other posts in this thread so what posts are you talking about?

[dodgerdodge]

There we go again; reduce fire risk. Reduce it how? Reduce it by keeping all the honest folk and dog walkers out? Seriously?
That's about as naive as banning guns and thinking criminals can't possibly own them after they are banned, because they are banned, right?

People need to get over themselves and their need to restrict people because they think they are solving some greater good issue.

People have an issue with this law because they only see red tape in the future. This is only the beginning of restrictions.

People who have an issue with this law are just part of the problem, like i said in earlier reply you cannot choose to adjust a law to suit individual cases so it cannot be anything other than a blanket ban, end of! There are no exceptions for "nice dog walkers"
The whole idea is to restrict numbers of people coming into a park or trail which in turn "minimises" the risk factor. Nobody said it was a perfect idea and nobody knows how effective it has been, but if there are very few fires started in these areas i guess the powers that be will say its been a success.
There is no "red tape in the future" issue here, that's just overreaction, once fire risk is back to reasonable level parks will be open as before, same as back country and campfires, its a short lived thing, its not a big problem

[Catsumi]

Yes, all the little boys living in mummy's basement will soon abandon their x-boxes and gameboys to get back to tearing up the landscape on their motorized tricycles, playing with matches, and bush parties soon enough.

[WalterWhite]

There we go again; reduce fire risk. Reduce it how? Reduce it by keeping all the honest folk and dog walkers out? Seriously?
That's about as naive as banning guns and thinking criminals can't possibly own them after they are banned, because they are banned, right?

People need to get over themselves and their need to restrict people because they think they are solving some greater good issue.

People have an issue with this law because they only see red tape in the future. This is only the beginning of restrictions.

People who have an issue with this law are just part of the problem, like i said in earlier reply you cannot choose to adjust a law to suit individual cases so it cannot be anything other than a blanket ban, end of! There are no exceptions for "nice dog walkers"
The whole idea is to restrict numbers of people coming into a park or trail which in turn "minimises" the risk factor. Nobody said it was a perfect idea and nobody knows how effective it has been, but if there are very few fires started in these areas i guess the powers that be will say its been a success.
There is no "red tape in the future" issue here, that's just overreaction, once fire risk is back to reasonable level parks will be open as before, same as back country and campfires, its a short lived thing, its not a big problem

I respectfully disagree, and you're missing the point. It's not about adjusting a law to individual cases, but not imposing the bans in the first place. It's taking eyes out of areas that should be carefully watched in times like this to report issues before they turn into the raging inferno we just witnessed. Like I said before - bans such as this do nothing but keep honest people out of these areas. The type that need watching don't follow the rules, and will go anyway.

[dodgerdodge]

I respectfully disagree, and you're missing the point. It's not about adjusting a law to individual cases, but not imposing the bans in the first place. It's taking eyes out of areas that should be carefully watched in times like this to report issues before they turn into the raging inferno we just witnessed. Like I said before - bans such as this do nothing but keep honest people out of these areas. The type that need watching don't follow the rules, and will go anyway.

Of course there will always be stupid dishonest people who wilfully ignore any ban or law put in place and yes these people could still be a threat, but i don't think any City in these extreme times would go with your suggestion of the more eyes out there the better. They have to make a judgement call to try and reduce the fire risk and this was one such decision, rightly or wrongly they made it and any wining from would be hikers and dog walkers will be short lived once the bans are lifted.

[youjustcomplain]

...but I think it's pretty easy to distinguish between a person walking a dog and a person trying to start a fire.

Arson is already illegal. The park closures are not to avoid arson. An Arsonist will simply ignore the bylaw just as they ignore other laws when they intentionally start fires. No, arson and park closures are not part of the same thing. The reason for the park closure is due to the "extreme fire risk". Which is to say that humans are more likely to accidently be the cause of a fire.
All that said, smokers are not "accidently" starting fires. They are very intentionally igniting their cancer stick, then throwing on the ground. For me, this is next to arson, only I don't believe smokers are trying to light grass fires.

You think it's easy to distinguish between a person walking a dog and a person who might start a fire? You must have skills beyond that of mine. I can't even tell if someone walking a dog is a smoker, unless they have a cigarette hanging out of their mouth. I think that other than dog walkers who are also smokers, almost everyone else would be pretty safe in the parks. But, we already have laws against people smoking in parks and yet, we keep seeing cigarette butts on the ground aswell as grass fires started by a cigarette. It's safe to say that there are enough smokers out there who disregard the laws set out for our own benefit.

The park closer is a must due to the lowest common denominator. In this case, that is the careless smoker. Until the rest of us can gain the skill to know which dog walkers are careless smokers, the parks need to remain closed so that law enforcement have some way to prevent people from using the parks.
If anyone witnesses someone breaking the bylaw, call the RCMP. Don't post here, just report it and move on. Trust that the RCMP will follow up; they do. And you'll get the side benefit of knowing that you're helping protect your community from a fire that might destroy a park, a house, wildlife habitat and possibly human life.

[Opeeved]

There we go again; reduce fire risk. Reduce it how? Reduce it by keeping all the honest folk and dog walkers out? Seriously?
That's about as naive as banning guns and thinking criminals can't possibly own them after they are banned, because they are banned, right?

People need to get over themselves and their need to restrict people because they think they are solving some greater good issue.

People have an issue with this law because they only see red tape in the future. This is only the beginning of restrictions.

People who have an issue with this law are just part of the problem, like i said in earlier reply you cannot choose to adjust a law to suit individual cases so it cannot be anything other than a blanket ban, end of! There are no exceptions for "nice dog walkers"
The whole idea is to restrict numbers of people coming into a park or trail which in turn "minimises" the risk factor. Nobody said it was a perfect idea and nobody knows how effective it has been, but if there are very few fires started in these areas i guess the powers that be will say its been a success.
There is no "red tape in the future" issue here, that's just overreaction, once fire risk is back to reasonable level parks will be open as before, same as back country and campfires, its a short lived thing, its not a big problem

Nah, your argument, nay, life values, is moot in the same capacity you are saying sparki's is (and mine, not speaking for sparki, only myself).
It's easy to turn around what you said to fit my values. It's a community budgeted trail for pedestrian access for the enjoyment of tax payers, "nice people walking their dogs" who are aware of the risks and mitigate and that also pay for. It's not the back country where dumb people may.... May be lurking.

Acquiescence is the true problem along with deficient cranial smarts. The "law" isn't black and white, and a little critical thought can verify that- codified rules, interpreted by lawyers and judges, in courts where sometimes initial findings go on to 2nd, 3rd and 4th appeal hearings. Now that, is the bona fide definition of black and white. :/

This whole thread started out as- ignorant people, I, with, my belief and arguments, have turned it around.

I sometimes throw my butt out my window in a ginormous paved parking lot because I need my hands navigating the absolute problem pedestrian law breakers that are part of the problem, which at best one could call me a litterer, but not part of the problem of forest fires. Because some of us know better that to be complete dolts that can't anticipate fire risk.

[GordonH]

Only takes 1 as hole i.e Knox Mt fire

this was either a person walking or on a bicycle smoking. Has anyone been charged in this???
How many outstanding citizens were out walking Knox that day & no one actually seen the butt thrower (since no motorized vehicles were aloud on Knox, cloudless skys & no hydro poles anywhere near)
Good thing it was not a really windy day, or what trees on Knox would have been gone along with maybe homes in magic estates.

[Lore]

I sometimes throw my butt out my window

Ahhhh,
Now I see why your all upset over this topic.
Your a smoker and a smoker who apparently does
not like to be told not to go into certain areas.
BTW you really should not be throwing butts out
your window anywhere but I think you know that.

[Opeeved]

Only takes 1 as hole i.e Knox Mt fire

this was either a person walking or on a bicycle smoking. Has anyone been charged in this???
How many outstanding citizens were out walking Knox that day & no one actually seen the butt thrower (since no motorized vehicles were aloud on Knox, cloudless skys & no hydro poles anywhere near)
Good thing it was not a really windy day, or what trees on Knox would have been gone along with maybe homes in magic estates.

a statistically likely assumption for ignition, an assumption just the same.

Is that the difference now? Statistically guilty?

[GordonH]

Only takes 1 as hole i.e Knox Mt fire

this was either a person walking or on a bicycle smoking. Has anyone been charged in this???
How many outstanding citizens were out walking Knox that day & no one actually seen the butt thrower (since no motorized vehicles were aloud on Knox, cloudless skys & no hydro poles anywhere near)
Good thing it was not a really windy day, or what trees on Knox would have been gone along with maybe homes in magic estates.

a statistically likely assumption for ignition, an assumption just the same.

Is that the difference now? Statistically guilty?

No assumption on my part, just pointing out the obvious ....a smoker either by a butt or a match. As I've already point out no lightning strike, no motorized vehicle & no hydro line shorting out. Only foot & bike traffic
Oh your right.... it's was a squirrel/chipmunk that learn how to create fire.

Since no one appears to have been charged or fined, that says no one seen what happen. Parks can be burnt and no one is found responsible.

[kgcayenne]

Don't you people realize no rules apply to dog owners here? Owning a dog is an automatic 'exemption' to all park rules. [/sarcasm off]

You can visit any park where dogs are not permitted and find people taking their dogs there. EVERY one, I guaran-frikken-tee you. Just Sunday at Munson Pond Park that has signs all around the protected area we observed three people with dogs, one of which was off-leash.

[dodgerdodge]

It's easy to turn around what you said to fit my values. It's a community budgeted trail for pedestrian access for the enjoyment of tax payers, "nice people walking their dogs" who are aware of the risks and mitigate and that also pay for. It's not the back country where dumb people may.... May be lurking.

Acquiescence is the true problem along with deficient cranial smarts. The "law" isn't black and white, and a little critical thought can verify that- codified rules, interpreted by lawyers and judges, in courts where sometimes initial findings go on to 2nd, 3rd and 4th appeal hearings. Now that, is the bona fide definition of black and white. :/

This whole thread started out as- ignorant people, I, with, my belief and arguments, have turned it around.

I sometimes throw my butt out my window in a ginormous paved parking lot because I need my hands navigating the absolute problem pedestrian law breakers that are part of the problem, which at best one could call me a litterer, but not part of the problem of forest fires. Because some of us know better that to be complete dolts that can't anticipate fire risk.

I really didn't understand most of what you typed but in a nutshell you seem to be saying if you pay taxes and aren't a firestarter its ok to walk in a closed trail and whilst you personally would never do anything to start a fire in these areas you are quite happy to flick your butt in a parking lot and its the pedestrians fault.
I see your values and i think they maybe kinda screwed just a little.