4 ms·

> The author is bringing up traditional burning practices because suppression of those practices is a cause of our current mega fires. tl;dr Yes, we should do

> The author is bringing up traditional burning practices because suppression of those practices is a cause of our current mega fires. tl;dr Yes, we should do more controlled burns. No, our current situation has very little to do with "traditional burning practices". Racism against First Peoples isn't the biggest or near one of the biggest reason we haven't been doing controlled burns in California -- leftwing greenies have opposed burns because they oppose man's intervention with nature. _Was_ racism a reason? Sure, but the past is not the present. The present situation with fires is mostly driven by leftwing politics. The greenies didn't just oppose "traditional burning practices" but also _modern_ burning practices that are used in other US states, and they have much more control over California's policy (and even Fed Interior policy) than racist bogeymen. Even this correction is being driven by those politics, as a return to "traditional burning practices" after (real and imagined) historical injustice.

TimTheTinker 3y ago
> The present situation with fires is mostly driven by leftwing politics. That's the truth that this article attempts to dodge.
test098 3y ago
> The present situation with fires is mostly driven by leftwing politics. so still the people who colonized north america? you've turned this entire thing into a left wing vs right wing culture war issue when the article is just providing historical context. nobody is attacking the right wing in this article - not sure why you're perceiving it as one.
cmh89 3y ago
>Racism against First Peoples isn't the biggest or near one of the biggest reason we haven't been doing controlled burns in California -- leftwing greenies have opposed burns because they oppose man's intervention with nature. I'm sorry, this is just incredibly incorrect. Forest management on the federal level is owned by logging companies. The drive to put out fires, even in remote areas, is driven by a desire to not lose acres that could be logged. It's taken activist decades to convince the Forest Service and the BLM to do controlled burns and we *still* put out naturally-ignited fires in remote areas.
- 2devnull 3y ago
  We’re talking about California. Are you saying California is owned by the logging companies? That seems rather dubious. I won’t say you’re incredibly incorrect myself, but maybe just simply incorrect?
  - cmh89 3y ago
    >We’re talking about California. Are you saying California is owned by the logging companies? That seems rather dubious. Most of the forested land in California is owned by the federal government, who has historically managed the land based on the priorities of natural resource extractors like logging companies. This article is about the PNW, but it functioned the same way in California https://wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/Ron-Vorderstrasse.pdf https://wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/Ron-Vorderstrasse.pdf >I won’t say you’re incredibly incorrect myself, but maybe just simply incorrect? You're complete lack of knowledge on this subject doesn't make me incorrect. Please go do some reading and come back with an intelligent argument.
    - 2devnull 3y ago
      From 2017 to 2021, an average of 60,000 wildfires occurred each year, and about one-fifth of them were on federal lands.

TimTheTinker 3y ago

> The present situation with fires is mostly driven by leftwing politics. That's the truth that this article attempts to dodge.

test098 3y ago

> The present situation with fires is mostly driven by leftwing politics. so still the people who colonized north america? you've turned this entire thing into a left wing vs right wing culture war issue when the article is just providing historical context. nobody is attacking the right wing in this article - not sure why you're perceiving it as one.

cmh89 3y ago

>Racism against First Peoples isn't the biggest or near one of the biggest reason we haven't been doing controlled burns in California -- leftwing greenies have opposed burns because they oppose man's intervention with nature. I'm sorry, this is just incredibly incorrect. Forest management on the federal level is owned by logging companies. The drive to put out fires, even in remote areas, is driven by a desire to not lose acres that could be logged. It's taken activist decades to convince the Forest Service and the BLM to do controlled burns and we *still* put out naturally-ignited fires in remote areas.

2devnull 3y ago
We’re talking about California. Are you saying California is owned by the logging companies? That seems rather dubious. I won’t say you’re incredibly incorrect myself, but maybe just simply incorrect?
- cmh89 3y ago
  >We’re talking about California. Are you saying California is owned by the logging companies? That seems rather dubious. Most of the forested land in California is owned by the federal government, who has historically managed the land based on the priorities of natural resource extractors like logging companies. This article is about the PNW, but it functioned the same way in California https://wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/Ron-Vorderstrasse.pdf https://wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/Ron-Vorderstrasse.pdf >I won’t say you’re incredibly incorrect myself, but maybe just simply incorrect? You're complete lack of knowledge on this subject doesn't make me incorrect. Please go do some reading and come back with an intelligent argument.
  - 2devnull 3y ago
    From 2017 to 2021, an average of 60,000 wildfires occurred each year, and about one-fifth of them were on federal lands.