"Managed wilderness" may not be such an oxymoron.
I enjoyed your post. I wasn't familiar with East Coast lowlands issues.

As far as "managed wilderness" in the west, it's possible. First, one has to realize there are two types of forest fires in the wast. The first is the more usual, a fire which burns only the undergrowth and fallen limbs. They will char the bark on the larger trees but tend to rejuvenate the ground under the trees. The fact that there are many, many trees that are 100, 200, 300, four and five hundreds of years old attests to that. And these fires clear out that which would fuel larger fires.

Those fires can be managed if the Forest Service hasn't allowed houses to be built in the area. And managed they tend mimic the unmamaged conditions, where fires burned from time to time.

The other type is a fire in an area which has not allowed fires, which has stamped them out as soon as possible. In those areas the tinder and fuel builds up and builds up until it fuels a massive fire which spreads to the crowns and kills the trees.

Those fires are truly wild. Once it spreads to the crown it can jump barriers, moves very fast, and it dangerous as all hell. People 1/2 a mile away from the fire can find themselves surrounded in 3 minutes.

So, it's best to "manage" the smaller fires rather than suppress them, and let them go. And mankinds encroachment has prevented that.

Thanks again for the low and wetland perspective.