Treehugger or firehugger?

Here is an article published in 2002 and ignored by the radical leftist that have controlled California for decades; The drumbeat for prescribed fire has never been louder. The Sierra Club and other environmentalists say this is the way to solve the wildfire crisis: fire is natural and therefore good for forests. Yet, the Sierra Club has a “zero cut” policy. It wants to protect trees from loggers but it does not mind killing millions of trees with fire.
Environmentalists cannot have it both ways. Are they tree-huggers or fire-huggers?
If we looked back 200 years, we would see fires burning regularly in 91 percent of our forests. These were mostly gentle fires that stayed on the ground as they wandered around under the trees. You could walk over the flames without burning your legs.
In a historic forest, gentle fires burned often enough to clear dead wood and small trees from under the big trees. They might flare up in a pile of logs or a patch of thick trees, but would quickly drop back to the ground. Such hot spots kept forests diverse by creating openings where young trees and shrubs could grow. https://www.warriorssociety.org/News/HistoricForests.html