The only problem, Jeff, is that this is all theoretical.
The Forest Service also allowed the initial fire to burn under drought conditions because they were following a policy that says to allow fires to burn, and then added gasoline to try to build a backfire, and then followed weather predictions that they claim were wrong–so their entire plan was theoretical.
Nobody knows what will happen in the burned over area. I would think it depends on how much soil was destroyed, and how the ash, gasoline, and other fire fighting materials have affected the water quality.
According to Forest Service reports, the fire burned so hot that some of the trees vaporized. So what did it do to the wildlife? (Also, the kind of jellied gasoline used by the Forest Service is a kind of napalm. This is what happened when napalm was used in Vietnam–things vaporized, even people.)
While we can remain hopeful, we will never correct bad policies if we don’t acknowledge that they exist.
The Forest Service is doing an equally bad job of protecting Superior National Forest by allowing uncontrolled mineral exploration.
The majority of policy put forth today is based upon computer modeling.
What we need is less paperwork and more people actually outside with their feet on the ground, actually interacting with and undestanding the real environment.
I believe that the Forest Service should immediately ban all logging and mineral exploration on the land adjoining the wilderness fire, in order to provide a buffer zone for wildlife until the area can make a comeback over the next several years.