We asked, you answered.

Tim Houston announced a “stay out of the woods” order on Aug. 5, amid “tinder dry” conditions across the province. A total ban on open fires was brought in the week before, with both bans punishable by a $25,000 fine.

The whole point is obviously to prevent wildfires and we don’t have to look too far for a cautionary tale. Newfoundland and Labrador’s provincial fire duty officer says the largest of the province’s out-of-control wildfires continues to gain ground, helped by dry, windy conditions.

All that said, not everybody agrees with the need for a full ban. A national advocacy group—The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF)—is threatening Nova Scotia with legal action over its decision to restrict travel in the woods.

Media outlets are saying the province is divided on this one, but our readers certainly aren’t. We asked you whether you agreed with the ban and the results were overwhelmingly in favour of Houston’s order.

Here are the official poll results:

And here are some of our favourite reader responses:

Yes! The situation is just too risky right now and we all need to pull together.

“Those who refuse to join collective action for the greater good, seem ill equipped psychologically to manage any kind of short term adjustment in their own behaviour.”

“It’s not everyday you see humans choosing the right thing for the environment, so when they do, you take it.”

“I saw a woman making her way up Mount Hope Rd the other day. She was walking in the tall grass on the side opposite the sidewalk, as she pushed through the tall grass she smoked her cigarette. We need a ban because many people are not capable of making their own wise decisions.”

“Extreme fire risk is extreme. The communities of Tantallon and Shelburne County don’t need reminding I bet!!!”

“It only takes one campfire poorly extinguished or a glowing roach to start a fire. If you’ve never lived through the devastation of a fire, you are not cognizant enough of its destructive ability. Prevention is the key.”

“If all people were thoughtful, considerate and intelligent enough to do the right thing then bans like this would not be necessary. Sadly I’ve found this is not the case!”

“Having been in Australia during the catastrophic fires, I support all bans into wooded areas. I was not in direct line of fire but close enough to understand how quickly a wid fire starts and becomes unmanageable in no time. Frightening.”

“I know it sucks if you are a camper, cyclist who uses the trails (like me) or just generally like to walk in the parks, but this is serious business. We must pull together and just suck it up!!”

“If people go in the woods and a wildfire starts somewhere….THEY are endangering firefighters by possibly needing to be rescued. STAY OUT OF THE WOODS…….avoid the need to put some firefighter’s life at risk to rescue you if there DOES happen to be a lightning strike or fire that traps you. People are thick selfish.”

“There are just too many idiots out there who ignore the simple common sense stuff, so everyone has to be held back.”

“Do we all need to be reminded of the wildfires in 2023 in Halifax & Shelburne alone that destroyed people’s homes, livelihoods & places for wild animals to live. It was not nearly as tinder dry in the forests then as it is now. All it would take is one careless person who could destroy everyone’s walks on the said trails for years to come. They need to use their heads & for now find somewhere else to walk or play. ”

“Irresponsible people violate the ban, then they blame the Government if their property is burned down.”

“This is yet another example of the tension between individual rights and collective rights. Sometimes the rights of the collective must take precedence for public health, or collective safety or security. Think of speed limits on roads and highways. Many of those who champion individual rights don’t give a rat’s ass about the rights of others. It is because of these few idiots who lack common sense that we have to have restrictions in the interests of the public good. And a bigger issue – are these kinds of bans going to be the ‘new normal’ because the climate is changing? Probably, since we know that collectively we are not doing nearly enough to deal with the crisis of climate change. The planet is literally burning up.”

“A friend of mine asked a Park Warden at Blomidon what he thought of the ban. He said he was very relieved. He picks up countless cigarette butts every day. Say no more.”

“The ban is temporary. Where are people going to hike, etc. if the woods burn down due to carelessness? Never mind the horrendous, lasting effects of fire on wildlife, communities, etc. ”

“The last time we had such a ban is only a couple of years ago. Boys in our neighbourhood intentionally set a fire on a walking trail nearby. Their parents were all saying ‘boys will be boys’ and so on. Perhaps it would have been more impactful if that little fire were closer to their own homes, but it’s unlikely.”

“There is an ‘expiry date’ on this ban. I totally support this short term pain for long term gain.. Hopefully we can look forward to rejoicing due to a forest fire “free” season, other than a few small quickly extinguished flare ups. Thanks for asking.”

“The ban on woods and trail use makes me sad because I love biking and hiking, but I feel it is a necessary sacrifice at this time. There are many more things to enjoy about summer, we just have to be more creative. Also, I’m concerned about our government’s blatant disregard of the environment in so many circumstances (uranium mining, fracking, planning housing developments in ecologically sensitive & valuable areas, etc), which will further contribute to climate change, the driving force behind the drought we are experiencing! ”

“If there is a 50% chance 1 person in a 1,000 could start a fire that would mean 75% for 2,000 people: 87.5% for 3000 etc. 2 weeks ago there were probably more than 10,000 in woods on any given day: making it an almost certainty we would have fires without the ban.”

No! The ban is overstepping on our liberty and mobility rights.

“I don’t smoke. My property backs onto a green belt, fifty feet wide, gravel walking path. It’s in the centre of Dartmouth. Oathill Lake. A STUPID ban by STUPID bureaucrats in my opinion. I just want to walk my beagle.”

“I support allowing those who need to live in the woods access, especially considering the fact the HRM is busy clearing out all the urban tenting locations for unhoused people, but support the ban for all other purposes.”

“There needs to be an allowance for cyclists to use the trails, especially the Chain of Lakes which is a transportation path that cuts down on people using cars!!!”

“You mentioned Covid. People fail to acknowledge just how much the restrictions damaged young people. Because, I guess, somehow the future of our country are less important.”

“Prevention starts with ongoing forest management which is the responsibility of a competent government. Look into all the cuts to this department and how this unfolded. This is a problem was created by government and now they pretend controlling the public is the answer. I fear A much bigger agenda is at play here based on fear and control.”

“I agree pulling together is important. Fine smoking and the rest. The blanket ban is problematic, for mobility. This is the same reason in the pandemic banning people to have access to beaches was ridiculous. Expecting people to be incapable of using common sense is infantilizing.”

“The ban even prohibits walking on dykes. People throw their cigarettes out the windows of their cars as they drive along. The Province gives permits to loggers and others working in the woods with significant potential for starting fires. Campgrounds are open with all the attendant risks of fires. I have never seen a fire start from the contact of soles on the ground. We are governed by a bunch of morons.”

“Houston is like an Ultraconservative Father who want us kept in the Dark and locked in the basement so nothing bad can happen to us! Bad Tim!”