Large Fierce Mammal

Header graphic from Travel, Activities in Woods Restricted to Prevent Wildfires, issued 5 August 2025 by the Premier’s Office and Department of Natural Resources

Further to our last gathering,  I will today revisit some realities that I have trotted out before but will again today on the grounds that I, at least, want to hear them again.

The closing of the Nova Scotia woods to all travel of any kind, and the official reasons for doing so, were spoken to last time. Since then I have observed the rightness and wrongness of this being argued as though it represents something unprecedented, another overreach of government powers, and none of that will factor one jot into the points I will be making today and in subsequent related utterances.

No, rather than being drawn into the clamour of argument between the inevitably polarized factions, drawn up behind their predictable battle lines over the Grievance du Jour, I wish to identify some points of overarching commonality that have become common practice in “hoople” management.

“Hoople
1. A noun; A derogatory term describing or referring to an unsophisticated person from a rural background or community ….” ~ Urban Dictionary

For clarity, the aforesaid is one of several definitions offered by the Urban Dictionary, captured here as most applicable to my topic, most particularly in its employment of the word “unsophisticated”. A highly subjective term, often more felt by than spoken to those upon whose hoople heads it comes to be applied.

To start then, let us delve for what educational value is to be found in revisiting the 5 August 2025 announcement of the FIRE PROCLAMATION- TRAVEL BAN , (“the Proclamation” henceforth) which can be read in its brief entirety by clicking on the title, and from which I will now quote relevant passages with commentary.

WHEREAS … the Minister deems it necessary for the protection of the woods, to designate … a restricted travel zone in any area of the woods upon which no person shall enter for the purpose of travelling, camping, fishing or picnicking, or any other purpose, without a valid travel permit issued by the Minister, a conservation officer or other person authorized by the Minister during the period specified in the Proclamation.

The foregoing very specifically declares designation of, “… a restricted travel zone in any area of the woods upon which no person shall enter for the purpose of travelling, camping, fishing or picnicking, or any other purpose …” as being, “… necessary for the protection of the woods …”.

AND WHEREAS the Minister of Natural Resources now deems it necessary for the protection of the woods to make such a Proclamation;

Again, the, “… Minister of Natural Resources now deems it necessary for the protection of the woods to make such a Proclamation ….”

NOW KNOW that the Minister of Natural Resources … does hereby prohibit entry into the woods for the purposes of travelling, camping, fishing or picnicking, or any other purpose, without a valid travel permit in all counties in Nova Scotia.

If we can learn anything from this, it’s that the Nova Scotia Government is of the position that it knows what is necessary for, “the protection of the woods”, and among those necessities is prohibition of travelling, camping, fishing, or picnicking — let alone any other purpose up to and including (one must assume) Polish Rules Mushroom Picking which hallowed practice resulted in the conception of my Incomparable Mrs. LFM.

The overarching legislation, specifically The Forests Act (TFA) charges government with responsibility to safeguard “the woods” through sound management, and powers to enforce those measures it deems prudent in that endeavour. The woods closure under discussion draws both its authority to make the proclamation bringing it into force and the wording thereof, directly from TFA Section 25(1) and a ban on open fires in the woods was already in effect under Section 24(1).

At its roots, TFA, as with all legislation designed to set limits on what can and cannot be done within the bounds of a civil society, is to set the bar on what constitutes people behaving badly (PBB) which I have previously defined:

“Common use would define bad behaviour as any act that is at odds with the accepted rules of the society in which the act is committed. These may be written or unwritten and are mechanisms by which the suitability of any person or group may be assessed for its propriety and acceptability to the good of the community that surrounds them. Among other things, it sets out the framework defining who can be trusted and who cannot, delineating the law abiding from the outlaw. The safe from the dangerous. The good from the bad.

“Even the most trusting among us will have little difficulty picking up on just how this can lead to abuse of power at all levels. Few of those same trusting souls would ever identify themselves as having any part in such abuses.

“Even fewer will realize that weighing the gravity of a bad behaviour purely against its effects on other people and their communities or societies is as big a waste of time as defining the value of Nature purely in the context of needing to be preserved for the benefit of humans.” ~ Dark Sentiments Season 14 — Day 5: A Certain Scent of Self-Importance

PBB, as we all know, is one leg of the tripod of death under conditions of absolute austerity, the other two being medical issues and starvation, and we need no Apocalypse bringing down “The End of the World As We Know It” (TEOTWAWKI) to see it in action. Just take a walk through a homeless encampment.

Similarly, it should have been obvious long before now that penalties against PBB are only effective on people who are:

1. Already predisposed not to behave badly in the circumstances the law is designed to regulate; or
2. Otherwise predisposed but having too much to lose from getting caught and publicly named and shamed even if later not ultimately charged or even convicted (the “Process IS the Punishment” effect).

Naturally, and even necessarily although “necessary” is an ever widening chasm in which may be hidden a plethora of bad behaviours, we have those experiencing no tangible effect, including:

1. Those who cleave to outlawry as one of their personal charms;
2. The stupid who neither expect to get caught nor fear the consequences when they (sometimes repeatedly) do; and
3. Those who by way of occupation, personal necessity, religious affiliation; legally entrenched entitlements, and sometimes just who they know.

Of these, only item 3 enjoy the exemptions built into laws to permit resulting Proclamations to sound like the putting down of a government’s foot with a firm hand while simultaneously ensuring business as usual — Thou shalt not do this, that, or the other thing without a valid travel permit.

So what’s the answer?

My fastest and surest position is not bans evocative of misleading vividness, offered in the face of troubled times as a substitute for understanding informing effective action.

More to come as this line of inquiry continues its YOMP to conclusion, but I will end today with yet another Urban Dictionary definition of “hoople” that might more accurately characterize decades worth of developments near and far:

“A useless or self-serving organization. A wasteful business run by incompetents. A public sector organization with no useful purpose other than to generate paperwork, internal reports and provide incomes for its executives ….”