“Usually the “For what” is to protect land from devastating fires that occur because you don’t do a controlled burn every so many years.”
I obviously didn’t understand the whole backstory. What I understood was that these people were committing arson and I was confused as to why any rational person would condone this. The extenuating circumstances were unclear to me. I understand the merits of these burning techniques, I just didn’t realize it was applicable to this story. I was focusing predominately on the last paragraph of the excerpt.
And don’t let the hippies con you with their BS. Indians (or ‘native Americans’, as my daughter insists) practised clear-cutting, burning and other odious sins against Mother Gaia because it made for better hunting and was practical stewardship of the land, as opposed to saving snail darters.
The feds do firebreaks themselves. Other than that they are most effective in demanding rents for “their” land.
Don't get me wrong, I also don't know the details of this story. I don't know how often their land type needs to be burned. I don't even know if there is trees in the area. I don't know if they put firefighters at risk by setting the backfires. I just know the lightning was doing the part it did before land management became a thing, and God knew what he was doing. My dad, who worked with Fire Depts said fires before land management could burn areas the size of states and Indians couldn't blame white man for it.