The key term here, I think, is that Deschutes Collaborative favors "restoration" over "management." "Management" prioritizes maximum yields over fire prevention and forest health. "Restoration" reverses these priorities. 

A healthy, resilient forest is less likely to burn out of control. It has older trees, and more species of them, and they would typically be spaced much more widely than in a tree plantation. Because of this, wildfires would remove brush and dead trees without fires getting into the canopy/tree tops. 

The old trees not only survive these brush fires; they would actually benefit. Conventional management practices would entail harvesting trees at a relatively young age; restoration would mean that harvesting of healthy trees would be postponed perhaps indefinitely.

Forest products would remain abundant, however, as long as restoration-oriented thinning was practiced. Given the vast amount of land that needs restoration, this would be a long, long time.