In this episode, I welcome back Kevin Proescholdt of Wilderness Watch to discuss wilderness policy debates, focusing on large prescribed-burning proposals like the Forest Service plan to burn all 289,000 acres of Illinois’s Shawnee National Forest, including about 40,000 acres of designated wilderness, and a Boundary Waters project proposal to burn roughly 87,000 of Wilderness. Kevin and I dispute claims that Indigenous people broadly burned entire regions and landscapes, citing newer research suggesting more localized burning around village sites and for food cultivation. We argue agencies use false Indigenous fire narratives to justify forest thinning and landscape manipulation. We also critique Claire Boerigter’s recent article: “How protecting wilderness could mean purposefully tending it, not just leaving it alone,” which advocates active management of wilderness.

Wilderness, Indigenous land zones and regionality in North American forests

For Wilderness to remain wild, it must remain unmanipulated

02:03 Kevin Proescholdt background

04:01 Current wilderness hotspots

06:59 Holding the wilderness line

12:20 Why wilderness matters

15:31 Fire narratives and logging cover

18:58 Shawnee National Forest burn proposal

21:36 Indigenous burning

24:22 Boundary Waters burn plan

25:28 Flawed fire history methods

26:46 Habitat loss and species decline

27:16 Wilderness Act Misread

30:53 Wilderness Pristine Straw Man Arguments

35:47 Let Lightning Fires Burn

38:14 Why High Intensity Matters

40:21 Wildness and Mental Health

41:27 Fire Regeneration Perspective

Get full access to Our Public Lands Podcast at ourpubliclandspodcast.substack.com/subscribe