That's not how it works. Most larger trees survive fires just fine, they just don't look very pretty for a while afterwards.
In Australia, there are trees like the aptly named stringybark that exude flammable oils and peel off thin strips of their own bark to form highly flammable piles of tinder under themselves, which appears to ensure that any forest fire is powerful but passes through quickly (not killing the tree), and conveniently eliminates any nearby competition in the process.
Lots of small fires means it never gets that bad. We’re well past that point now.
In theory that's how it should work. The problem is when you have heat plus drought conditions... the wildfires consume everything.
For example, the Castle fire in California consumed over a tenth of the entire population of giant sequoias. Giant sequoias are pretty fire resistant due to their size and height, but this fire devastated them.
AFAIK over the last few decades it is well understood that fires should be left to burn and generally this happens unless they threaten population areas. In theory this should mean that the next fire season has less fuel to burn but it's not working.
I'm not sure what the author is talking about is really current practices since I've heard the opposite so many times. What he describes seem to be mostly past practices.
There are trees in the US that require fire to propagate. The lodgepole pine, for example, is ubiquitous across western North America
On the other hand city blocks, suburbs and good size lawns are boring in comparison but at least they are harder to burn down in dry weather.
Until the government/insurance companies stop paying for it people will keep rebuilding in the exact same spot.
Stop living where there are forest fires and there won't be such an urgency to put them out.
Also, I think there's a kneejerk reaction to blaming forest services for not taking care of the forests. When in reality (a) they do: brush clearing and controlled burns happen all the time in california & oregon, (b) forests are far too huge for even 10x the puny forestry service of today, and (c) budget is constantly being cut.
Also x 2: the west coast US is experience drought unlike any since humans settled the west coast. Letting forest fires burn in California, Oregon and Washington now wound remove the forests entirely. EDIT: Regardless it is gonna happen, there are completely brown/orange forests in central oregon just waiting to burn.