Close the backcountry?

[johnny24]

100 percent perfectly. There was not one fire that spread from a campfire that had not been lit.

100% perfectly? Last year was a record year for fires.

[Frisk]

100% perfectly? Last year was a record year for fires.

Because of lightning and prolonged, widespread drought. Not sure how many times we have to tell you this.
The total number of human caused fires last year was actually below the 10 year average by the way.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safe ... e-averages

[johnny24]

100% perfectly? Last year was a record year for fires.

Because of lightning and prolonged, widespread drought. Not sure how many times we have to tell you this.
The total number of human caused fires last year was actually below the 10 year average by the way.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safe ... e-averages

Oh, because of lightning? I see. We should definitely close the backcountry then.

And number of human cause fires was at 40%. Almost identical to the historical average. Pretty sure I've told you all this before also.

[dogspoiler]

I believe I have it, we need a lightning ban.

[johnny24]

I believe I have it, we need a lightning ban.

It's been mentioned, but no progress has been made yet. I blame the NDP for that.

[Frisk]

Oh, because of lightning? I see. We should definitely close the backcountry then.

If it comes to the point that resources are very stretched and the danger rating is high, sure. It'll help prevent additional human caused fires on top of the lightning ones. The experts know what they're doing.

[bob vernon]

When it gets as dry as it is now (we got less than 4 mm at our house over the weekend with the showers) the back country should be closed. A certain percentage of campers will light a campfire no matter how many signs are posted. There doesn't appear to be any more rain anytime soon.

[LTD]

rained a ton at my place im in the bush no need to close it not that it would happen anyway

[Hassel99]

When it gets as dry as it is now (we got less than 4 mm at our house over the weekend with the showers) the back country should be closed. A certain percentage of campers will light a campfire no matter how many signs are posted. There doesn't appear to be any more rain anytime soon.

Odd logic, if they wont listen to a campfire ban, what makes you think they will listen to a back country ban?

[LTD]

campfire ban should now be removed as well

[Sparki55]

When it gets as dry as it is now (we got less than 4 mm at our house over the weekend with the showers) the back country should be closed. A certain percentage of campers will light a campfire no matter how many signs are posted. There doesn't appear to be any more rain anytime soon.

Odd logic, if they wont listen to a campfire ban, what makes you think they will listen to a back country ban?

Thanks for seeing the lack of logic too. There is no logic behind this. Just a bunch of people who either do not use the backcountry so don't care if it's closed or don't understand that a ban won't keep stupid out of the forests, only the good guys who are not having campfires during a ban anyway.

[Woodenhead]

I feel the same way about all rules. If idiots ignore them anyway, just get rid of the rules altogether.

[Sparki55]

I feel the same way about all rules. If idiots ignore them anyway, just get rid of the rules altogether.

This isn't about if people ignore rules then get rid of them. Thanks for coming out to oversimplify this!

This is about a ban of the backcountry that people want in place becasue they will think it will curb human caused fires. Our argument is that the people who light fires are already not following the rules, will a ban of the backcountry keep them out? No.

What you're suggesting is that similar to: speeding tickets are in place and we ticket those who speed, we don't ban all cars becasue some people speed and we won't be removing speeding laws becasue some speed. The system works as is and those who speed pay fines.

[Woodenhead]

I feel the same way about all rules. If idiots ignore them anyway, just get rid of the rules altogether.

This isn't about if people ignore rules then get rid of them. Thanks for coming out to oversimplify this!

This is about a ban of the backcountry that people want in place becasue they will think it will curb human caused fires. Our argument is that the people who light fires are already not following the rules, will a ban of the backcountry keep them out? No.

What you're suggesting is that similar to: speeding tickets are in place and we ticket those who speed, we don't ban all cars becasue some people speed and we won't be removing speeding laws becasue some speed. The system works as is and those who speed pay fines.

Nope, nice try there with the mental gymnastics, sparki. You just proved my point, in truth. But I don't expect much of posters here.

[Sparki55]

Nope, nice try there with the mental gymnastics, sparki. You just proved my point, in truth. But I don't expect much of posters here.

Hardly mental gymnastics. The speeding ticket analogy proves exactly my point that we do not need to ban the public from going into the backcountry. Banning people from pitching a tent at their favorite fishing lake for the weekend will cut down on ZERO fires.

To say I proved your point makes zero sense? What rules did I break? Are you calling me an idiot? Did I get rid of all the fourm rules? Try debating the topic with some input about how banning all backcountry activity will stop fires.