Close the backcountry?

[Farmmaa]

over 80% of all of the wildfires this year have been ignited by lightening.

The majority of human caused fires are contained to those in close proximity to homes, businesses and public parks.
How many human caused fires have there been in the back country so far ???

Is closing the back country to those of us who use it...and are not idiots.... going to reduce the number of lightening strikes ?

[Woodenhead]

It'll be under the same restrictions as last year soon enough.

[seewood]

Is closing the back country to those of us who use it...and are not idiots.... going to reduce the number of lightening strikes ?

Nope.

Going to reduce fires caused by the idiots, likely. I like the back country as much as anyone and will be soon enjoying more of it as recently retired. However I find the idiots that cause a fire and the untold millions of tax payer money to control and get the fire out never seem to be held accountable and if so, never have the untold millions to pay back the province.
Sooo, for perhaps a few weeks of the year when the fire hazard is into the extreme for a number of weeks, I personally don't have an issue with not being able to access the back country.
Besides this government needs the money for other schemes.

[tsayta]

What I don't like is that this is my favourite time of year to be out here. I'm careful. I'm not the idiot. In fact, I'm the eyes on the ground that will report the idiot that just started the fire. Close the backcountry and law abiders like me won't be out here. Law breaking idjuts will be. That means no eyes on the ground

[johnny24]

Is closing the back country to those of us who use it...and are not idiots.... going to reduce the number of lightening strikes ?

Nope.

Going to reduce fires caused by the idiots, likely. I like the back country as much as anyone and will be soon enjoying more of it as recently retired. However I find the idiots that cause a fire and the untold millions of tax payer money to control and get the fire out never seem to be held accountable and if so, never have the untold millions to pay back the province.
Sooo, for perhaps a few weeks of the year when the fire hazard is into the extreme for a number of weeks, I personally don't have an issue with not being able to access the back country.
Besides this government needs the money for other schemes.

There are activities that are far more costly and dangerous than forest fires. For example, letting seniors drive. Since you are newly retired, I'm sure you'll be in favour of turning in your license as you are now a greater risk of causing a fatality?

[seewood]

Since you are newly retired, I'm sure you'll be in favour of turning in your license as you are now a greater risk of causing a fatality?

Off to area 27 next month with 360 hp Golf R

I see the push back from not having access to the back country. In my youth I spent many a night on a glacier or some mountain somewhere. I've bivi'd off exposed ridges because of lightening storms. Not the only one that has had to do that I'm sure. To have a few weeks of the summer when I can't for the better good of the forest/bush I personally can handle that. Believe me I understand many that can't or worse perhaps won't. Lets hope we get a bit of moisture in the next little while and this topic goes to the bottom of the page.
But how do you stop the idiots that take their rifles to the bush, light a camp fire with a couple of 24 packs on ice...?

[Drip_Torch]

^^^ one option...

Call 1-877-952-7277 (RAPP) or #7277 on the TELUS Mobility Network. But, that doesn't work so well when the only folks in the woods are the idiots that take their rifles to the bush, light a camp fire with a couple of 24 packs on ice.

And before someone tells me there are only so many conservation officers, let me come right out and say - there are only so many conservation officers. It's a big Province.

PS: I'm not hard against back country bans. There's a time and place when it is appropriate, but there are a number of other factors that are far too easily overlooked.

[pentona]

^^^ one option...

Call 1-877-952-7277 (RAPP) or #7277 on the TELUS Mobility Network. But, that doesn't work so well when the only folks in the woods are the idiots that take their rifles to the bush, light a camp fire with a couple of 24 packs on ice.

And before someone tells me there are only so many conservation officers, let me come right out and say - there are only so many conservation officers. It's a big Province.

PS: I'm not hard against back country bans. There's a time and place when it is appropriate, but there are a number of other factors that are far too easily overlooked.

What would the logistics be for closing the back country? I don't honestly know but can imagine that it would take huge manpower, roadblocks/checkpoints. Not just a matter of putting up a barricade across a road leading to the bush. Some people live on those roads, so it would seem a daunting task, would it not? Driptorch, do you know? I've not seen major closures personally.

[tsayta]

Exactly. And just like the case for gun control. Ban guns and the law abiding citizens will comply. Gangsters and drug dealers just carry on. Bush pyros will also just do what they please

[Symbonite]

I dont know because im on my sofa...

But I know one thing..if 80 per cent is caused by Lightning...then the other 20 per cent is 20 percent too many!

If you guys are so much into the wilderness....then i all burns down...how enjoyable will it be camping next to a wasteland. I know I wouldnt.

[sherriff]

*removed*

[Sparki55]

I dont know because im on my sofa...

But I know one thing..if 80 per cent is caused by Lightning...then the other 20 per cent is 20 percent too many!

If you guys are so much into the wilderness....then i all burns down...how enjoyable will it be camping next to a wasteland. I know I wouldnt.

80% lightning, 20% human. How many of that 20% is caused by people in the backcountry? Most human caused are from cigarettes from cars and arsonists close to town (kids playing with fire). There is already a fire ban and we are all abiding by that (all the law abiding people you want banned from the bush) and we are checking in on other people who will just ignore this ban anyway.

You all make zero case for the ban, best you come up with is "people cause fires and if a ban prevents 1 fire then it is worth it". One lightning storm can start 50+ fires in BC in one night, why are you so bent out of shape thinking people in the backcountry are even making a dent in that stat? If one fire a year was started by this back country going group in all of the okanagan per year, the risk is worth the reward, let us have some fun andput your effort to better detecting lighting strikes to get those fires contained faster.

[johnny24]

What an ignorant statement to make, to suggest all seniors cause accidents. Listen carefully you idiot "we get the best insurance rates for a reason" My rate is $700/yr. for full coverage on a 1 ton truck, what's yours.

Never said they all cause accidents, but sounds like you consider yourself a good driver and you'd be mad if you were made to stop driving simply because your fellow seniors as a group are statistically far more likely to cause a fatality. You're kind of proving my point. They all don't cause accidents, just like all backcountry hikers don't cause fires.

It's a bit rich that a senior citizen can complain about the cost of fighting forest fires when the cost is miniscule compared to the costs that the elderly place on our system. If you really want to reduce government spending, I can think of many other activities we should curtail that would produce a far greater savings.

[Woodenhead]

Just keep the city slickers out.

[Symbonite]

Another reason to close it

https://www.straight.com/news/1114411/w ... -vancouver

Most likely from a campfire