Explore the vast range of titles available.

Historical and contemporary policies and practices, including the suppression of lightning-ignited fires and the removal of intentional fires ignited by Indigenous peoples, have resulted in over a century of fire exclusion across many of the USA’s landscapes. Within many designated wilderness areas, this intentional exclusion of fire has clearly altered ecological processes and thus constitutes a fundamental and ubiquitous act of trammeling . Through a framework that recognizes four orders of trammeling , we demonstrate the substantial, long-term, and negative effects of fire exclusion on the natural conditions of fire-adapted wilderness ecosystems. In order to un trammel more than a century of fire exclusion, the implementation of active programs of intentional burning may be necessary across some wilderness landscapes. We also suggest greater recognition and accommodation of Indigenous cultural burning, a practice which Tribes used to shape and maintain many fire-adapted landscapes for thousands of years before Euro-American colonization, including landscapes today designated as wilderness. Human-ignited fire may be critical to restoring the natural character of fire-adapted wilderness landscapes and can also support ecocultural restoration efforts sought by Indigenous peoples.

Background An increasing wildfire problem in western North America has created a policy space for Indigenous fire stewardship (IFS) to mitigate wildfire. We compare how British Columbia and California have supported IFS—two jurisdictions with distinct ecosystems but similar histories of colonialism and its socio-ecological consequences. We examine how IFS is incorporated into each jurisdiction’s institutional framework, and the barriers to, and opportunities for implementation. Results Each jurisdiction’s approach to recognizing IFS is shaped by different constitutional frameworks and legal relationships with Indigenous Peoples. California recently developed policies and planning documents to support IFS and enable co-stewardship and contracting agreements similar to the policies of some federal agencies. However, barriers related to land tenure constrain IFS practitioners and inhibit meaningful implementation across broader landscapes. Compared to California, British Columbia has not shown as much openness to supporting independent IFS practitioners, but instead has begun a project to integrate aspects of IFS into the existing provincial wildfire service. While British Columbia has expressed interest in working toward a shared decision-making approach with First Nations, the present framework restricts IFS to Indigenous land tenures (which comprises only 0.4% of the province). Conclusions Despite legal and policy changes to support IFS since 2017, deep-seated constraints prevent systematic implementation at a meaningful scale in both jurisdictions. Laws cannot by themselves catalyze social change; they must be complemented by a suite of initiatives to transform the social context. Some of these changes to enable IFS include government support for Land Back and land access for IFS practitioners; the removal of agency silos; building awareness of, and support for IFS within agencies and among the public; and providing resources for Indigenous Peoples to steward landscapes throughout the year, to achieve multiple goals.

Background Enactment of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), three of the primary federal environmental laws, all coincided with the height of fire suppression and exclusion in the United States. These laws fail to acknowledge or account for the importance of fire in many fire-adapted and fire-dependent ecosystems, particularly in the American west, or the imperative for fire restoration to improve resiliency and reduce wildfire risk as identified by western science and Indigenous knowledge. We review the statutory and regulatory provisions of these federal laws to identify how the existing policy framework misaligns with the unique role of fire in ecosystems and with Tribal sovereignty, identify specific barriers and disincentives to beneficial fire use, and propose specific policy reforms. Results The CAA, the ESA, and NEPA inhibit the use of beneficial fire as they are founded in a policy framework that treats fire restoration and maintenance as a federal action or human activity, rather than as a natural, baseline, or keystone process. The emergency exceptions in these policies reduce accountability and incentivize the wrong kind of fire, and compliance creates a perverse outcome by disincentivizing fire restoration. Further, these federal policies impede Tribal sovereignty. Conclusions Modifications to these laws would better enable fire restoration in fire-dependent and fire-adapted ecosystems, reduce wildfire risk, and ultimately meet the statutes’ core purposes. Federal agencies and Congress should reform regulatory frameworks to explicitly recognize fire as a baseline, natural, or keystone process, such that restoring fire in fire-dependent and fire-adapted ecosystems at levels not significantly exceeding pre-1800 fire return intervals is not treated as a federal or agency action. Further, non-Tribal governments should not attempt to regulate cultural burning, as it is a retained right of Indigenous peoples.

Wild and intentionally ignited fires are not new to North American landscapes or to the Indigenous cultures whose ancestral places encompass them. For millennia, Indigenous fire stewardship has been regionally and locally distributed across North American ecosystems. These practices reshaped fire regimes to provide safe living and foraging conditions and reduced wildfires and their emissions prior to Euro-American colonization. Euro-American colonization impacts initially included introduction of foreign diseases and widespread genocide, which broadly diminished the extent of Indigenous fire stewardship. Colonial policies and practices thereafter effectively altered vegetation and fuel patterns, fire regimes, and the once far-reaching effects of Indigenous fire stewardship. These influences have contributed to the current state of wildfires and their climate effects. Prior to colonization, Indigenous stewardship rights had been passed down through generations for millennia of active stewardship, and those rights were and continue to be protected under Indigenous law. However, US federal laws do not recognize these fundamental rights despite their legal standing in international law. Re-instating these rights would provide many advantages to addressing the modern wildfire and climate crisis. Re-instatement could be accelerated through linked land access, policy reform, and learning opportunities. Resumen Los incendios naturales o iniciados intencionalmente no son nuevos en los paisajes de Norteamérica, o para las culturas indígenas cuyos lugares ancestrales abarcan. Por milenios, las Administraciones Indígenas de Tierras para mitigar los incendios ( Indigenous Fire Stewardship , IFS) han sido regional- y localmente distribuidas a través de los ecosistemas de Norteamérica. Esas prácticas reconfiguraron los regímenes de fuegos para proveer de condiciones de vida más seguras y también de forraje, y redujeron los incendios naturales y sus emisiones previo a la llegada de la colonización Euro-americana. Los impactos de esta colonización incluyeron la introducción de enfermedades foráneas, y genocidios diversos, lo que disminuyó en gran medida la extensión de las IFS. Las políticas y prácticas coloniales posteriores efectivamente alteraron la vegetación y los patrones de combustibles, los regímenes de fuegos, y también los efectos de las IFS, por entonces poderosas y de gran alcance territorial. Esas influencias han contribuido al estado actual de los incendios de vegetación y sus efectos sobre el clima. Antes de la colonización, los derechos de las IFS se pasaban de generación en generación y por milenios, mediante la administración activa de las IFS, y esos derechos fueron, y continúan siendo protegidos, bajo la ley indígena. Sin embargo las leyes federales de los EEUU no reconocen ese derecho fundamental a pesar de su status legal dentro de las leyes internacionales. Reinstalar esos derechos proveerá de muchas ventajas para ser adicionadas a la crisis moderna de los incendios y del clima. Esta reinstalación puede acelerarse a través de accesos ligados a diferentes tierras, una reforma de las políticas y las oportunidades que brinda el aprendizaje.