Burn zones are pretty cool, and totally a part of (healthy) nature.  Burn zones are paradise for wildflowers and birds.   A lot of the big wildfire problems that we have today are because of a century of total wilderness mismanagement focused on *preventing* fires and putting them out as quickly as possible... which is actually a terrible idea.  Regular wildfires are a totally normal thing, they help quite a lot with diversity of flaura and fauna by providing different habitats, and allowing small fires to burn keeps the mega fires from ever happening in the first place by burning up the dry brush and litter that would fuel a huge fire if it was allowed to accumulate.  Native tree species are resistant to fire with larger trees able to survive most normal wildfires and many of them even depending on fires to germinate a new generation (pinecones that literally will not even open unless heated in a fire, and then the new sprouts get to grow up in nutrient rich ash in an area with sunlight i.e. a burn zone.  A healthy forest should be a patchwork with some areas of old growth, some areas of recent burn, and some areas of new growth in old burn zones.  This ensures that the early colonizing species of plants that first grow in a burn zone are nearby when a new burn zone happens, and the regrowth process can happen quickly.  The absolute worst thing you can do to a forest (besides a clearcut I suppose, but the end result is about the same) is to suppress the natural wildfire cycle and allow dead wood and forest litter to build up to the point that a fire can become a "super fire" which kills even the oldest mature trees and burns the soil to the point that it all just washes away and nothing can regrow.