I'm shocked this isn't being done already. But what on earth is the reasoning in this article? There are plenty of great reasons to do controlled burns, but for some reason the article says controlled burns are good because:
> purposeful burns have been used by Indigenous people to keep forests and wildland healthy for millenia.
When talking about the reason for overgrowth, the article talks about how it's the fault of Europeans who said controlled burns are primitive. The person they reference is not someone in the forest service, or someone who is an expert in this. They reference the "UC Davis professor of Native American Studies Beth Rose Middleton Manning".
Is this article supposed to be about controlled burns being put in California? Or is it supposed to be how the europeans were so stupid, native americans were so smart, and wildfires are the fault of westward expansion? Why not talk about more concrete reasons that controlled burns are good without appealing to it being opposite of racists?
> purposeful burns have been used by Indigenous people to keep forests and wildland healthy for millenia.
When talking about the reason for overgrowth, the article talks about how it's the fault of Europeans who said controlled burns are primitive. The person they reference is not someone in the forest service, or someone who is an expert in this. They reference the "UC Davis professor of Native American Studies Beth Rose Middleton Manning".
Is this article supposed to be about controlled burns being put in California? Or is it supposed to be how the europeans were so stupid, native americans were so smart, and wildfires are the fault of westward expansion? Why not talk about more concrete reasons that controlled burns are good without appealing to it being opposite of racists?