A Ban on Burning

A recent proposal from Tuesday’s council meeting proposed a complete ban on open air fires in the HRM. While I can understand the concerns, particularly after last year’s wildfire season, this proposal needs to be adjusted.

The Background

Referring to the 2023 Annual Wildfire Statistics, debris fires factor significantly (2nd highest cases). They were only 14 instances short of arson (the top cause) and 16 ahead of slash and land clearing. We cannot write off the cause as inconsequential. In reading further and seeing the causes from 2007-2023, the top three appear in the same order.

That being said, many of these fires occurred when a ban was in place. Reports this year show that some still “don’t quite get it” as there were more than a few fires going outside of the hours set in the burn restrictions.

How would this work?

The proposal would see an outright ban on outdoor or open burning during the wildfire season (about 15 March to 15 October). Those caught burning during this timeframe would fall under enforcement actions. Seems pretty simple.

It’s also hitting a mosquito with a hammer.

Three Key Problems

Our first issue is that bans tend to limit the behaviour of those who normally respect those kinds of things. These are also the people most likely to exercise a level of care when burning. Last year, bans were in place and ignored by certain people and wildfires ensued. So a ban does not guarantee a reduction in wildfires, just in the probability of wildfires.

Our second issue is that this proposes nothing new that would be useful. Our current burn restrictions use a scientific and reasonably approach to limiting burn activity. Restrictions reflect the risks and communicate a ban necessary to help manage that risk. A blank moratorium simply means that if you burn some brush in a completely safe way after a week’s worth of rain (and still in the rain), you’d be guilty of breaking the ban. This would accomplish little.

Finally, this ban could actually help preserve hazardous conditions. Consider the amount of deadfall wood currently in wooded areas. As this remains in place and dries out, it becomes tinder for the next wildfire. It impedes the mobility of fire crews, limits the movement of equipment, and provides a source of fuel to help fires spread. Removing this brush and burning it in a controlled and safe way reduces this hazard. This proposed moratorium would eliminate that work and leave the hazard in place.

A More Reasoned Approach?

Improving enforcement during bans provides one quick-hit alternative. Where reports of illegal burning come in, this can be dealt with appropriately–as they try to do now.

Our second effort lies in education. Three topics could be (1) sources of ignition, (2) burning safely, and (3) responding to a fire getting out of hand.

  • Consider awareness campaigns such as those run by Riderswest and their ATV and RV Fire Safety Tips or groups like the National Wildfire Coordinating Group and their tips for ATV riders. Developing something similar in consultation with the various ATV and trail-riding groups may help.
  • Raise awareness of campfire safety. There’s already a decent page for this run by the province. The Northwest Territories has something similar, as does Alberta. For those that need a bit more detail, consider organizations like the “Leave No Trace” outdoors group and their guidance on campfires.
  • Having built awareness, help build up the tools that that can help prevent fires from spreading. Three major tools come to mind: (1) a water carrier, (2) axe or hatchet, and (3) entrenching tool. These aren’t that expensive and can easily prevent some pretty difficult situations.
  • Make these kinds of tools available in kits at reduced cost for those that are looking to head out. Let’s face it, Nova Scotia’s outdoors are part of the reasons why we either stay or others from away come to visit. So why not make it easier?
  • Finally, use the volunteer communities to help educate and build a community of trainers who understand the different communities.

If we need to limit activities beyond just a burn ban, consider the following:

  • Heavier fines and a liability cause for those that toss cigarette butts into the ditches on the side of the road. Set something up where a license plate can be reported and, if there’s proof (like a cell phone picture), an enforcement action can be started.
  • A quick check for those riding ATV’s with respect to having properly maintained spark arresters and having the kinds of tools (or equivalent) on hand for their rides. This isn’t about having a big licensing and inspection, but perhaps more of an incentive in terms of if you have the course and you have the kit, it’s easier to get trail passes or something similar.
  • I keep harping on this, but given what we teach in schools these days, perhaps a one semester course on basic emergency preparedness and this could be a unit in it. Incorporate things like ATV riding, camping, and such .

It’s completely understandable how this proposal might look reasonable–especially if you were close enough to the fires to do more than smell the smoke. That being said, let’s focus on measures that will reduce wildfire risks and not take measures that may not yield the results we hope for.