Logging generally does not have the same effect (logging takes big trees and leave small stuff, fires leave big trees and kill small stuff. Also the heat from fire is important for the germination of some types of trees)

So the point you’re making is kind of besides the point I think?

There is no apparent option where we don’t have fire. Lightning, utility failure, random people smoking, a trailer with a flat tired (that happened), prescribed burns - it’s inevitable it happens at some point.

> I don't see why climate change would affect the positive aspects of fire.

... since it has a strong effect on the fire and the forest, both pre and post fire. It changes a lot of calculus, including the relative benefit of letting things burn out.

We could have a really long discussion on the best wildlands management practices, and the tradeoffs. Prescribed burns, in recent history, have only covered a very very tiny fraction of land. Scaling that up would be logistical difficult, expensive, and probably politically infeasible. Letting things burn is also problematic, as the species mix is no longer well adapted for fire in many places. Suppressing every fire is equally problematic, kind of like plugging the vent in a pressure cooker. Fire breaks, logging, prescribed burns, and other means of fuel load reduction are all traditional fixes that we can use tactically (around cities, etc), but are only going to go so far. In my opinion, we've backed ourselves into a corner in the US west, and with climate change there isn't necessarily a good option going forward.

(disclaimer: I study wildfires as part of my work in a Climate & Energy R&D group, though by no means an expert)

First one is the one you described, and the second one is that given the changes in climate that it's even possible to contain these wildfires using mechanical means, such as trenches and water drops.

It may not be.

The question then is which one is the lesser evil.