I sent the following letter to Mark Vonesch. I thought it might be of interest to the wider community.

Hi there,
I am a Cortes Island resident living full time in Squirrel Cove. I am confused about what is being put forward with the proposed open burning bylaw.

I have read the Staff Report that was received from the Chief Administrative Officer on September 13. Within that Staff Report, it appears that three options for an open burning bylaw are provided for:

Option A — THAT a bylaw that would allow an absolute ban on all open burning within the South
Cortes fire protection area be prepared for the Board's consideration.

Option B — THAT a bylaw that would provide for banning or partially banning prescribed types of
open burning within the South Cortes fire protection area, and the conditions associated therewith, be prepared for the Board's consideration.

Option C — THAT no further action be taken with respect to the matter of open burning regulation
within the South Codes fire protection area.

I note from the minutes of the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Strathcona Regional District held on Wednesday, September 13, 2023 that a motion was carried:

THAT a bylaw that would allow an absolute ban on all open burning within the South Cortes fire protection area be prepared for the Board's consideration.

This appears to mirror the language of Option A.

This option seems to imply a permanent absolute ban on all open burning in the South Cortes fire protection area, full stop.

However, in a recent interview with Roy Hales of Cortes Currents, you say:

“So I went back to the SRD and made a motion for us to start creating this bylaw. Basically, it’s going to allow us to make the call. If a fire ban gets lifted, our fire chief can assess the situation and make a recommendation to SRD staff, likely the emergency response person, and then that SRD staff person has the ability through the bylaw to maintain the ban.”

Your language in response to Cortes Currents seems to reflect what would be more akin to Option B above.

Can you please clarify the intent of this bylaw? On its face, it seems like you are saying one thing publicly to constituents about the intent of this bylaw, but you are advocating for another with the motion you put forward on September 13. I do not assume you are being dishonest about what you are advocating for, so I am forced to conclude that you may actually be confused about the options that were laid out in the Staff Report. The Chief Administrative Officer is very clear about the distinctions between Option A and Option B:

"In summary, if it is the Board's intent to simply impose an absolute ban on all open burning within the Cortes Island fire protection area, a bylaw to achieve such an outcome would be fairly straightforward. [Option A] On the other hand, if it is the intention to establish conditions under which a ban or partial ban on open burning is in effect, it will be necessary to establish the specific conditions. [Option B]"

The only thing I can conclude from the minutes of September 13 is that you have put forward a motion to prepare a bylaw that would result in an absolute ban on all burning within the South Cortes fire protection area, not a bylaw that would provide for the conditional ban of open burning based on local conditions like you described in your interview with Cortes Currents. This is disturbing.

For the record, I strongly oppose Option A above, and I am alarmed that there is a bylaw being prepared that appears to be heading toward an absolute ban on all burning in the South Cortes fire protection area. I do not even support Option B, but it is preferable to Option A. I could be persuaded to support Option B if there was a clear and objective measure by which the Fire Chief will determine and recommend that a Cortes-specific ban is appropriate, not subject to whims and lobbying. Really though, it is my preference we leave the determination of the wildfire risk and the appropriateness of bans to BC Wildfire Service - Option C. This does not reflect a complacency about the risk posed by wildfire, but a respect for the scientific rigour that the BC Wildfire service applies when establishing fire bans. BC Wildfire Service employs professionals to specifically make this exact call, balancing the rights of individuals to enjoy a campfire vs the wildfire risk that campfires present. Every year laypeople second guess the timing of these BC Wildfire Service bans, but laypeople are not subject matter experts. BC Wildfire Service are the subject matter experts. I personally believe it is preferable to leave the call on fire bans to BC Wildfire Service rather than have laypeople lobbying and haranguing the fire chief about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of fire bans. We are already paying people to make the right call on this.

In short, proposing a complete and absolute ban on fires on Cortes is regulatory overreach resulting from laypeople second guessing the subject matter experts of the BC Wildfire Service. That is a poor basis for public policy. Further, it also presents its own wildfire risks. If Cortes remains under a permanent absolute ban of fires when there is no credible and objective reason for it, people will start to ignore the ban, and ignoring fire bans will become normalized. There is a real risk that this normalization can lead to people ignoring fire bans on Cortes Island at all times, even when there is a wider open burning ban in place by BC Wildfire Service. This is also a risk of Option B, if it becomes common that we are declaring fire bans on Cortes when the rest of the Coastal Fire Centre is not under a ban. There is a real danger that people will not take these bans seriously, and that can extend even to when there are wider bans in the Coastal Fire Centre. This also makes it poor public policy. It undermines the credibility of necessary bans if people are regularly living under unnecessary bans. People will begin to routinely ignore them, and this is not a road we should go down. My understanding is that this is why BC Wildfire Service strives to avoid implementing unnecessary bans - to maintain the credibility of bans when they are necessary. We should also avoid inviting unnecessary bans for this very reason.

I strongly urge you to publicly clarify your intentions with the proposed open burning bylaw and if necessary clarify to SRD staff that your intention is to have them prepare a bylaw that conforms with Option B rather than Option A. I believe more public discussion around the need for any open burning bylaw is warranted though, now that cooler heads may prevail in this cooler weather.
Thank you,
Graham Blake
Cortes Island