The Maidu have been among the most successful at using grants to benefit their tribe. They have a huge cultural center in Roseville, CA to which many local 4th graders go on field trip. ($$$ of course.) They're the most high-profile of the Indian tribes around here.
They also have a casino (of course -- every tribe does here) up by Oroville. It's small, but surely a tribe that is running slot machines can afford to fund its own religious fire ceremonies.
Can you also look at public land that has been locked down as a monument here in CA? It’s been accepted that it’s the area where the tribe was “created”.
So their religious beliefs give them access to have land set aside for their religious purposes.
Much of this article sounds like the taxpayers are supporting a certain groups religious practices.
Cultural burning has a role to play. I am in Western Australia thst has basically the same climate as California. Decades of fire exclusion by massive suppression efforts have created what fire fighters and land managers call a "fire trap". Successful suppression builds fuel, and once enough of the landscape is ready to burn, it will. And then costs become astronomical, as more and more money is spent on retardant, aircraft, camps and campaigns. The smarter money is on mitigation. Hard, dirty work that generates smoke, and human nature what it is, nobody remembers the fire that didn't happen... Here is an article on the matter that I wrote https://quillette.com/2025/01/16/fighting-fire-with-fire/
The Cultural Burning can be important, as it restores agency, and DEI obsessed environmental groups find it hard to object to First Nations exercising their culture. It helps to normalise mitigation. I do see though that a program that allows people with no formal accreditation light burns that non-native Americans must demonstrate training, competence and experience could cause problems. An escaped burning (rare) could bring the whole program into disrepute. Lack of scale could be an issue as well, but with experience comes confidence and then scale.
My experience with California and the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs is that there isn't a more corrupt edifice in the deep state. A department run by Indians for Indians with little oversite. I proved the leader/chief of a non-recognized tribe who wanted to build a casino had embezzlement $750,000 and his punishment was that he couldn't be chief anymore, no funds recovered whole thing swept under the rug. Corruption personified.
I’m sure that those granting these funds feel mighty good about themselves. What good people are they! And no taxpayer should object to their preening with someone else’s money.
The Maidu have been among the most successful at using grants to benefit their tribe. They have a huge cultural center in Roseville, CA to which many local 4th graders go on field trip. ($$$ of course.) They're the most high-profile of the Indian tribes around here.
They also have a casino (of course -- every tribe does here) up by Oroville. It's small, but surely a tribe that is running slot machines can afford to fund its own religious fire ceremonies.
More kickbacks and money laundering.
....."and they use dollar bills to light the fire.....".......
Can you also look at public land that has been locked down as a monument here in CA? It’s been accepted that it’s the area where the tribe was “created”.
So their religious beliefs give them access to have land set aside for their religious purposes.
Much of this article sounds like the taxpayers are supporting a certain groups religious practices.
Has that angle been explored?
Idiocy and corruption at it’s finest
If it weren’t for the graft involved, this would be great for a good laugh anytime!
$166,000 to observe owls. You gotta give it to the creative genius who came up with the grant idea!
You folks forget that there is no land on earth that hasn't been "stolen" a thousand times from preceding occupants.
Government excels at squandering wealth. Nothing else.
Cultural burning has a role to play. I am in Western Australia thst has basically the same climate as California. Decades of fire exclusion by massive suppression efforts have created what fire fighters and land managers call a "fire trap". Successful suppression builds fuel, and once enough of the landscape is ready to burn, it will. And then costs become astronomical, as more and more money is spent on retardant, aircraft, camps and campaigns. The smarter money is on mitigation. Hard, dirty work that generates smoke, and human nature what it is, nobody remembers the fire that didn't happen... Here is an article on the matter that I wrote https://quillette.com/2025/01/16/fighting-fire-with-fire/
The Cultural Burning can be important, as it restores agency, and DEI obsessed environmental groups find it hard to object to First Nations exercising their culture. It helps to normalise mitigation. I do see though that a program that allows people with no formal accreditation light burns that non-native Americans must demonstrate training, competence and experience could cause problems. An escaped burning (rare) could bring the whole program into disrepute. Lack of scale could be an issue as well, but with experience comes confidence and then scale.
I suspect the Palisades Fire was a cultural burn.
I wonder if they pay for fire fighters if their "controlled" fire gets out of control. Or do taxpayers get to pay for that, too?
What could possibly go wrong here?
Grift and funds diversion in California!? Say it ain’t so!
My experience with California and the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs is that there isn't a more corrupt edifice in the deep state. A department run by Indians for Indians with little oversite. I proved the leader/chief of a non-recognized tribe who wanted to build a casino had embezzlement $750,000 and his punishment was that he couldn't be chief anymore, no funds recovered whole thing swept under the rug. Corruption personified.
Dick Minnis removingthecataract.substack.com
I’m sure that those granting these funds feel mighty good about themselves. What good people are they! And no taxpayer should object to their preening with someone else’s money.