Offline
I think the reason they would establish a fire ban is to reduce the potential need to use emergency response personnel for a fire when they could be saving human lives.
Offline
PaPaddler wrote:
I think the reason they would establish a fire ban is to reduce the potential need to use emergency response personnel for a fire when they could be saving human lives.
Totally agree! All those backcountry firemen are needed to make sure COVID sufferers get their treatment.
Offline
I think the reason they would establish a fire ban is to reduce the potential need to use emergency response personnel for a fire when they could be saving human lives.
Totally agree! All those backcountry firemen are needed to make sure COVID sufferers get their treatment.
Somewhat agree but just perhaps we (campers) were just thrown a small bone!
Offline
I think the reason they would establish a fire ban is to reduce the potential need to use emergency response personnel for a fire when they could be saving human lives.
Totally agree! All those backcountry firemen are needed to make sure COVID sufferers get their treatment.
Somewhat agree but just perhaps we (campers) were just thrown a small bone!
I’m hoping to go out in the early spring on Crown land but no immediate plans are being made because the “new normal” is changing by the day. Hopefully I can spend quality camping time with my super sweet senior citizen loner-dog before all our earthly pleasures become forbidden.
P.S. if you are wondering why I have a loner dog it’s because our “dog guy” takes very good care of us, just like my car guy with our cars.
Offline
I'm curious as to whether Crown Land can be set off limits due to it's 'ownership' structure (for lack of a better word). I do foresee further limiting of movement though, but hopefully not to the point where you aren't allowed to even get to such land. It's amazing how different our world is from just a month ago...
Offline
It would be best if we were not allowed to go to crown land for camping. If we did go, we would need to prep by shopping extra and buying gas, both of which put us into more person to person contact, or at least in contact with other 'touch points.' The restricted movement is good, but we don't need to be legislated. We can just restrict our own movement because we're smart enough to understand why it's a good idea. 3 weeks of no one driving anywhere or doing any extra contact outside their homes, and we'll be back to the woods sooner. Mess around and no one goes camping till 2021.
Offline
My proposed crown land camping trip does not have any interaction with anyone. I leave Ottawa with everything I need due to detailed planning, with even extra gas should I need it, but doubt that I will and with all necessary precautions taken. I STRONGLY doubt I will see anyone on the lake I am planning for as it is not widely known. It is nice also that I am going into Zone 15 and, unlike Algonquin Park, trout season is open all year round. So as soon as ice goes out (and I have feelers out there), I plan on going unless something more drastic than now happens in the days ahead seeing this virus precautions change every hour. Fingers crossed!
Offline
You’re quite selfish.
Offline
You don't even know me, but you are entitled to your opinion. You don't even know that I might have only 1 month to live, that camping is what I need to feel whole,or that I might even want to do the inevitable and have one last camping trip. I never tell anyone what to do and would appreciate others not telling me what to do. Everyone has reasons for doing what they want to do. Freedom is freedom and going camping without harming anyone else is freedom for me.
Offline
You’re right I don’t know you. I do know that my grandmother just passed away and none of us could go see her because of this. I do know that no matter how well prepared you think you are you can run into something unexpected and need help that should be going toward someone else. I know that everyone is unhappy with what is happening but hey...you do you as you’re clearly going to.
Offline
Sorry to hear about your grandmother.....that is a tough one for sure.
However, if you knew me and had read my other posts on this subject, no one will be asked to get me out of some trouble if I run into some. I have taken survival courses so I am prepared for whatever is thrown my way. And I will have no contact whatsoever in getting to my crown land lake. Although I don't think I will need any, I am even throwing in an extra 5 gals. of gas.
I do take this coronavirus very serious. However, when one hears it could go on for 3 month or more, that doesn't fit well with me at all. Call me a rebel but there is no way I can stay inside for 3 months or more. I am not made that way. And if I can do what I LOVE to do without hurting anyone else, or drawing upon any other services out there, the urge is very strong to go camping. Being retired I am very up to date about corona and how it is changing from hour to hour. My final decision will be made once I have and know the latest about this virus. And should something come to light that my actions (in my mind) could possibly put others in danger, than plans would have to change. For the record, I heard today that we could be house bound for 4 months or more. Sorry.....but that just doesn't work for me!
Offline
Back to my original post.
“Sorry.....but that just doesn't work for me!”
You’re quite selfish. This isn’t about you and what works for you.
Offline
He's right Bo. It's not about you. You're being selfish and irresponsible.
Offline
I understand how emotions are running high here. My mother, who is in advanced stages of dementia, is in lock down and it's painful to think I may never see or talk to her again.
But I refuse to correlate this to others acting within their interests provided it's not irresponsible. So how does one define this? Is it irresponsible to enjoy something planned - as second nature - with the greatest of caution, not harming others, knowing there's a ridiculously remote chance something bad 'might' happen that requires intervention? I go for daily walks and run the risk of getting mauled by a dog, hit by a car, or struck by lightening - is this irresponsible of me? Should one who grocery shops weekly vs. bi-weekly be labeled doubly irresponsible? Should one who is away from civilization be considered more irresponsible than others who are still interacting/living within metres of others? How do we define this and where do we draw the line? Our government has deemed the LCBO as essential, but we are to pass judgement on a considerably less harmful activity that is so vital to someone's health?
100% with Bo on this.
Offline
Back to my original post.
“Sorry.....but that just doesn't work for me!”
You’re quite selfish. This isn’t about you and what works for you.
Again, you don't know what works for me!
I would suggest you read the rules of this forum about trying to invoke an argument. I feel this is what you are looking for and you won't get one from me. I will no longer have any other debate with you on this subject. Stay safe.....and I will try to do the same!
Offline
“Again, you don't know what works for me!”
You’re right, and you don’t quite seem to be reading my responses.
We clearly don’t see eye to eye on this issue. I hope you reconsider but either way you’re right we’re done here.
Offline
There's no debate. You are being selfish and irresponsible.
