Didn't read the whole article, but the whole thing reads as very anthropocentric to me. It seems that the entire discussion is around human/Native relationships to trees and whether we've grieved/learned our lesson enough. Which put humans entirely at the center of the narrative, when the narrative should primarily be around the tree's ecological relationships to all of nature. Hell, the article even mentions moth species that have gone extinct due to the downfall of the tree but fails to recognize that maybe humans shouldn't be the center or the universe in this narrative.