What is particularly harmful about the take you cite is that its not even relevant. What is relevant is the opposition to controlled burns today are more or less the exact same as they've always been I'd guess: local people who have no interest in breathing shit air for two or three weeks. By focusing on this other narrative we misunderstand today's stances on the issue, and how they might be rectified. For example, I'm sure local residents in impoverished rural areas wouldn't mind a stipend for the poor air quality during the burn period, for instance, which might make these burns more politically palatable.