I’m not talking about prescribed burns, which I agree with you are important.
What I was talking about was the policy level concept, pushed by leftists, “Let the Fires Burn.” It means not doing the firefighting part of management.
Depending on the forest, too much fire-suppression just makes the inevitable fires much more devastating. The “let it burn” strategy is better — in the remote boreal forest at least. Unfortunately, it’s not possible to just switch from a strategy of zealous fire suppression to one of “let it burn”. Overly mature forests, with an over-abundance of fuel just burn too hot (that’s what we’re seeing in the news). Those forests need to be thinned and cleared of underbrush first.