“State Parks Provided Kindling” — A Claim in Search of Proof

The headline in Circling the News “State Parks Provided Kindling for the January 7 Fire” makes a serious accusation. The problem is that the article never proves it.

What it offers instead is proximity dressed up as causation, speculation masquerading as evidence, and a narrative that shifts blame onto conservation staff without meeting even a minimal factual standard.

The article concedes early on that firefighters believed the January 1 Lachman Fire had not been fully extinguished. That fact alone undermines the entire premise. If a fire is not fully out, the relevant question is not whether brush was placed over a containment line. The question is why smoldering ground was left without full verification, monitoring, or follow-up.

Covering a containment line after a fire is not reckless by definition. It is a common post-suppression practice intended to prevent public misuse, erosion, and confusion. Calling that act “providing kindling” assumes, without proof, that the material placed on the surface was the ignition source days later.

No such proof is presented.

The article does not cite an ATF determination identifying that brush as the point of ignition. It does not offer a fire behavior analysis showing that the covered line burned first. It does not demonstrate that the material was connected to an active heat source. “Close to where embers ignited” is not evidence — it is geography.

The piece also misrepresents Area Avoidance Maps, portraying them as restrictions that prevent firefighting. In reality, these maps guide how suppression is conducted, not whether it occurs. Emergency wildfire response is not legally blocked by protected plants, and suggesting otherwise misinforms the public.

The inclusion of a bulldozer captain’s quote functions as theater, not proof. No evidence is offered that a bulldozer was required to extinguish the fire, that one was requested and denied, or that its absence caused rekindling. Attitude is not causation.

Finally, the article’s insinuation that firefighters hiring private attorneys signals whistleblower retaliation is pure speculation. Independent counsel in high-profile litigation is common and proves nothing.

This article does not demonstrate that State Parks caused the Palisades Fire. It demonstrates that an incompletely extinguished fire was left behind.

Those are not the same thing — and pretending they are does not make us safer.