Canada - Nova Scotia government fines people $25,000 for entering the woods, even on private land

[Anti Federalist]

 

[oyarde]

34 1907 f

That's like 5 bucks American.

34 pre 1930 five dollar coins would cover it . Been a bit of inflation past 95 yrs of fed boondoggle

 

[Occam's Banana]

Meanwhile in Ontario ...

 

[acptulsa]

 

[PAF]

It's ALL about restricting, tracking and monitoring people's right to movement , @Anti Federalist . They will use whatever means they can.

 

[acptulsa]

It's ALL about restricting, tracking and monitoring people's right to movement

I disagree. It's also about people not being in tune with the natural world. They want us afraid of it, afraid to leave our fifteen minute cities. They don't want us to believe there's any way to survive, to do anything but starve, outside the matrix. They not only don't want us to leave the matrix, they want us afraid to rock the matrix boat.

Look at the grounding movement. Look at the rise of the expression, "Touch grass". There is peace and tranquility in a forest that clears the mind. They don't want us at peace, they don't want us to have a satisfied tranquility, and they certainly don't want us walking around with clear minds.

 

[PAF]

I disagree. It's also about people not being in tune with the natural world. They want us afraid of it, afraid to leave our fifteen minute cities. They don't want us to believe there's any way to survive, to do anything but starve, outside the matrix. They not only don't want us to leave the matrix, they want us afraid to rock the matrix boat.

Look at the grounding movement. Look at the rise of the expression, "Touch grass". There is peace and tranquility in a forest that clears the mind. They don't want us at peace, they don't want us to have a satisfied tranquility, and they certainly don't want us walking around with clear minds.

I agree with ^ that ^.

I think we are just approaching/warning from different angles, which is good.

 

[acptulsa]

I think we are just approaching/warning from different angles, which is good.

I used to think so many of the things they do were killing two birds with one stone because of coincidence. Then I decided they just liked that, for the efficiency of it, to stroke their own egos. Now I've decided they do it for cover. Whenever they do any major psyop move, since you can't fool all of the people all of the time, some people get alerted to the danger. But any more, there always seems to be more than one danger. And too often, even the most skeptical of us don't see them all.

 

[PAF]

I used to think so many of the things they do were killing two birds with one stone because of coincidence. Then I decided they just liked that, for the efficiency of it, to stroke their own egos. Now I've decided they do it for cover. Whenever they do any major psyop move, since you can't fool all of the people all of the time, some people get alerted to the danger. But any more, there always seems to be more than one danger. And too often, even the most skeptical of us don't see them all.

All true.

I remember the wake up call when Ron said "read the bills!", and then I began to apply anything and everything to the Bill of Rights. To me that is "the border" that makes up the United States. If anyone or any corporation or any government fucks with the Bill of Rights, that's my line in the stand.

And now these corporatists/redefined-libertarians are attempting to use capitalism as a coercive means to shred the Bill of Rights, and use whatever means to implement the globalist technocratic order. Capitalism isn't to blame, it's the exploitation of it.

To add: it's not technology that I am bothered by; it's the fusion of corporations with government that is the threat. Technology is their means.

 

[Working Poor]

I have my own woods so I am not panning on going to Nova Scotia anytime soon

 

[Anti Federalist]

Meanwhile, in the land down under...

Outrage at proposal for special 'African courts' in Victoria

Australians reacted with anger to a proposal to give African criminals - who are driving Melbourne's youth crime crisis - special treatment in "African courts".

www.noticer.news

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[otherone]

Meanwhile, in the land down under...

Literally....Kangaroo Court.

 

[jmdrake]

@Anti Federalist , thank you for the thread. Interesting. Sad but interesting. Write-up at Reason. I learned a new word today. "Safetyism."

Nova Scotia bans everyone from hiking in the woods until October

The province says this will prevent forest fires. Those who violate the ban will face a $25,000 fine.

reason.com

Nova Scotia Bans Everyone From Hiking in the Woods Until October​

The province says this will prevent forest fires. Those who violate the ban will face a $25,000 fine.​

Sophia Mandt | 8.19.2025 2:35 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL

(Illustration: Eddie Marshall | Chris Dorney | Marcio Silva | Dreamstime.com | Midjourney)
This summer, outdoor enthusiasts in Nova Scotia face a difficult decision: stay out of the woods or face a $25,000 fine.

On August 5, Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston implemented a ban on "hiking, camping, fishing and use of vehicles such as ATVs in the woods due to an elevated wildfire risk," reported the CBC. Camping in campgrounds is still allowed, but trail systems are off limits, and people who work outdoors, such as miners, need to obtain permits and work mostly at night to reduce fire risk, according to the CBC. Under the ban, "private landowners are free to use their own properties," but guests are not allowed to use wooded areas on the land, per Houston's office. Anyone found violating these rules will face a $25,000 fine.

Nova Scotia has had an active wildfire season. In 2025, the province has seen 139 wildfires—22 in the last week—which have burned over 8,000 acres of land. One fire, which was likely caused by lightning, has resulted in an evacuation order for parts of Nova Scotia's Annapolis County. Unless weather conditions change, the ban will remain in place until October 15.
















Scott Tingley, manager of forest protection with the province's Department of Natural Resources, told the CBC that most wildfires in Nova Scotia are human-caused. "That's why we can't run the risk of having people in the woods, because when people are in the woods, even if they don't intend to, we will have fires," he said.

Nova Scotians have pushed back on the directive. Many say it violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by infringing upon their right to freely associate within the country as Canadian citizens.

Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn described the ban as an example of weaponized safety. "Nova Scotia's forest ban is overkill and it's deja vu," she said. "It's happening now because the government got away with it last time." In 2001, 2016, and 2023, wildfires led the province to implement bans on outdoor activities. (Notably, the 2023 restrictions were only implemented for about a week, whereas the August 5 ban remains in place as of this writing.)

"This is a classic example of safetyism: a mentality where risk becomes an excuse for control, not communication. Once the government sees that overreach is workable, it's replayed every few years," Van Geyn said.

In protest, Jeff Evely, a retired Canadian veteran and former candidate of the People's Party of Canada, posted a video of himself on X intentionally violating the ban and receiving a $28,872.50 fine. Evely said he wanted to receive the fine to challenge the order in court. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has agreed to represent him.

In response to the ban, the CCF announced it had sent a letter to Houston, arguing that the "sweeping ban unnecessarily and disproportionately restricts responsible outdoor recreation that has zero fire risk." The CCF has also formed an online petition urging Houston to rescind the ban.


Julissa Stewart, a resident of Louisdale, Nova Scotia, told the CBC, "It's one thing for somebody to go outside and light up a cigarette and throw a butt on the ground. It's another thing for somebody to want to take a hike in the woods…To put a ban on everything going into the woods…that's extreme overreach. I think that is overstepping on mobility rights."

The ban might save some lives, but instead of letting Canadians make their own decisions while communicating fire risks, the government has decided it's better to force people inside—even if doing so comes at the expense of one's freedom.