Can't blame you for being defensive, but it is factually false. The forest acreage that is more likely to burn and that burns more intensely is the acreage that's been clear-cut in the last half-century. The more recently, the higher the likelihood and intensity. This is because undergrowth can grow rampant in a forest with no canopy, and there's no profit to be had in extracting that undergrowth.

The largest fires in the west every year are in the forests that are most aggressively "managed". E.g. the land protected the least against logging for conservation efforts.