Nova Scotia’s forest access ban goes too far

Want to take a walk in the woods in Nova Scotia? It will cost you $25,000

Interview requests

It’s been a hot summer in Canada this year. Several provinces have struggled with the extreme heat wave and high-pressure buildup during July and August. This has opened the door to warnings of extreme fire danger, and more specifically, wildfires.

This has certainly been the case for Atlantic Canada. “Hot temperatures and a relative lack of precipitation may allow any blazes that spark to quickly grow out of control,” The Weather Network noted on Aug. 9. “Province-wide fire bans are in effect for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador. A regional state of emergency has also been declared for a portion of the Bay de Verde peninsula, from Bristol’s Hope to Whiteway, due to out-of-control wildfires.”

That’s why Atlantic Canadians are being understandably cautious during this high level of fire danger. Alas, one provincial government in the region has gone completely overboard in its response to wildfire season. It will be penalizing individuals for deciding to take—wait for it—a walk in the woods.

As crazy as that may sound, it’s completely true.

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston and his Progressive Conservative government announced on Aug. 5 that there would be several restrictions related to “travel and activities in the woods because continued hot, dry conditions have greatly increased the risk of wildfires.” (This would fall under the purview of the provincial Forests Act.) No one would be allowed to hike, camp, fish or use vehicles in the woods, for instance. Trail systems through the woods would be “off limits.” As for camping, it would only be allowed “in campgrounds.”

Here’s the kicker. “These and other measures are in place on provincial Crown and private land until Oct. 15 or until conditions allow them to be lifted. The fine for violating the restrictions is $25,000.”

Yes, you read this correctly. There could be a massive fine for taking a walk in the woods, among other things.

Terry Newman, one of my colleagues at the National Post, correctly suggested the Houston government’s decision was “obsessive” in an Aug. 6 post on X. She was born and raised in Nova Scotia, and her point of view obviously has credence.

Here’s what I wrote in response that day: “Agreed. Being cautious due to dry conditions and possible wildfires makes sense. Banning walking in the woods, and threatening penalties of $25,000 per incident, is beyond the pale.”

My X post went viral for a few days and elicited various responses on the left and right. The fact that some people got triggered over a straightforward comparison between common sense and strong opposition to government interference tells you something. Based on what we all just experienced a short number of years ago, it’s clear that some Canadians haven’t learned any lessons.

Others perceived the same thing that I did. “The justification for this COVID-esque forest quarantine is the threat of fire,” wrote another National Post colleague, Jamie Sarkonak. “Nova Scotia’s forest bans predate the COVID years, but the similarities are clear, and that’s probably why so many onlookers have their hackles up. During the pandemic, the public was put under extreme restrictions on movement to control the spread of what turned out to be a not very dangerous virus. Authorities erred on the side of control and risk reduction, likely because they lacked the competency to properly assess risk, and because the health care system was on thin ice.”

I completely agree. Although the two events are obviously different, Houston and the PCs are replicating the ill-advised strategy used during COVID-19 that gradually frustrated many residents in their province, and in all provinces. The Nova Scotia government will argue that its wildfire strategy and ban are being done out of a pressing need for safety and caution in their communities. They’ll suggest it has plenty of support across the province. In reality, it’s a massive overreach that puts each individual’s freedoms and liberties at serious risk. Following the lead of a political pied piper is never the right strategy to take.

The $25,000 fine is rather obscene, too.

The premier’s supporters will argue that it’ll serve as a significant deterrent to people from acting foolishly and irrationally during the extreme fire weather warning. If the province resembles a “tinderbox” (a word that has been used by talking heads over and over again), then they believe it should be protected at all costs. Besides the fact that it’s really not the government’s role to protect citizens from themselves in this fashion, it also doesn’t need to resemble an ATM or collections agency. As Sarkonak pointed out, the province’s Forests Act “was triggered previously in 1997, 2001, 2016 (back then, the fine was $180) and 2023. In 2025, they’ve done it again, this time with a fine as expensive as a Hyundai Elantra.”

How is this amount justified, exactly? It’s not. The type of government interference we’re witnessing in Nova Scotia is foolish, unprincipled and potentially dangerous. Unfortunately, I don’t believe the province fully sees, agrees with and recognizes the potential political and economic damage they’ve set themselves up for.

Maybe we need to light a fire under them to bring back some level of sanity and rational thinking on this issue before summer’s out.

Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights.