HikeArizona.COM

The Arizona Republic
by JJ Hensley - Aug. 24, 2011 11:52 AM
Two men face federal charges of leaving an unattended campfire that sparked the massive Wallow Fire this summer, charring more than 538,000 acres in northeastern Arizona, according to an indictment unsealed Wednesday.

Cousins Caleb Joshua Malboeuf and David Wayne Malboeuf built a campfire in late May and left it unattended, which helped spark the blaze, authorities said.

Investigators determined that on May 29, the men were camping near the Bear Wallow Trailhead, about 2 miles from where the fire began.

An investigator issued an alert for personnel to be on the lookout for a 2001 Toyota registered to David Malboeuf, and the cousins were arrested the following morning by an Apache County Sheriff's deputy.

The Malboeufs face five counts related to the unattended campfire in the Apache National Forest.

The Wallow Fire was the largest wildfire in Arizona history.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... z1VyYImfI2

Much more detail from the WMI:

Caleb Joshua Malboeuf, 26, of Benson, Ariz.; and David Wayne Malboeuf, 24, of Tucson, Ariz., were charged in connection with the Wallow Fire, which started on May 29, 2011, in the Apache Sitgreaves National Forest. They are scheduled to make an initial appearance in federal court in Flagstaff, Ariz. on September 19, 2011.

Both defendants were charged with five counts: Causing Timber to Burn, Leaving a Fire Unattended and Unextinguished, Leaving a Fire Without Completely Extinguishing It, Causing and Failing to Maintain Control of a Fire and Building a Campfire Without Removing All Flammable Material From Around the Campfire Adequate to Prevent its Escape....A conviction for each of the offenses charged in the complaint carries a maximum penalty of six months in prison, a $5,000 fine or both.

Investigation into the source and origin of the Wallow Fire indicated that the fire started when an unattended and unextinguished campfire in the Bear Wallow area spread out of its fire ring and quickly spread in high winds after Caleb and David Malboeuf had gone on a hike.
Upon noticing smoke from the direction of their campsite, the cousins attempted to get back to their campsite where they had left their gear. As they got closer, the smoke and flames became too intense, and they were forced to retreat.

http://www.wmicentral.com/news/latest_n ... 002e0.html

Six months in jail or 5k in fines seems like a *very* light sentence to me for willful negligence that lead directly to so much devastation for people, property, and the environment.

Jeff it's x5 -- so 2.5 years in jail AND $25k in fines. Plus the very strong likelihood of civil lawsuits for much more money.

And you won't find me defending these two, but I believe the legal argument will focus on the willful part of the negligence.

"Caleb and David both stated that they believe they took every precaution needed to prevent the escape of their campfire and that in no way did they intend to cause the forest fire," the complaint said.

Either way, the penalties seem to be on the light side.

It may seem lenient, but the precedent setting for larger sums and stiffer prison sentences would be severe. If it were premeditated, that would be different.

Not to many years ago I was quite involved with the Mesa Boy Scout District and after each spring District Camporee I would stay after a day or two with an older boy assistant or two and monitor every Troop's campsite fire ring. Think 120 Scout Troops with at least one or more fire rings to monitor! And yes I often found multiple fire rings not correctly put out. With shovels and hundreds of gallons of water we checked and double checked the entire Camporee area.

When reporting what we found we were honored with "Oh, no we put out our campfire properly, you must have our campsite mixed up with someone else!". One year on the Rim near the Tonto Village we found at least five rings still burning and one within an hour of lighting up the whole forest! The fire had gone underground and was within inches of reaching the neatly piled firewood pile they had left behind for someone else to use!!

They always teach you in the military that after you tell people to do something, you follow up on it to make sure that 1) they actually did it, and 2) did it to standard. At least in the military if they fail either step, you can tell them to do it again. (And again, and again, etc.)

My biggest thing is the threat to life. I'd love to postulate an argument that the eco devistation was the *real* disaster, but it's silly to try to place that before safety. That said, it seems to me that someone who accidentially fires off scores of rounds into a crowd is just as guilty as someone who accidentially sparks a fire that endangers a crowd.

jeffmacewen wrote:Six months in jail or 5k in fines seems like a *very* light sentence to me for willful negligence that lead directly to so much devastation for people, property, and the environment.

My emotions are still running pretty high from this devastating fire so I will try to be unbiased. It's really difficult for me because I love this area of the state. But I have to agree with Jeff. The cost to contain this fire, the devastation to the residents of the area WHO LOST THEIR HOMES and their livelihood in tourism, the toll on the environment and they will get a max of 2.5 years in jail and $25K fine maximum? I shake my head in disbelief. I know they didn't intend to set this fire but anyone with an average IQ should know to extinguish a campfire before leaving their campsite FOR ANY REASON or they don't belong in the wilderness.

These people who have been indicted, if they are found guilty, should not only face the jail term and fines but should have to do mandated trail and forest maintenance for a specified period of time (preferably for >10 years) in the White Mountains area so they are reminded of what they did (however unintentional) and what they destroyed.

Does anyone know if the story of the tied-up dog dragging its chain through the unattended fire turned out to be accurate? It sounds a bit like Mrs. O'Leary's cow.

big_load wrote:Does anyone know if the story of the tied-up dog dragging its chain through the unattended fire turned out to be accurate? It sounds a bit like Mrs. O'Leary's cow.

BL,

I heard this as a "rumor" also, back when the fire first started....two dogs were left chained to a tree and when the hikers returned to the campsite, they found the dogs dead and the fire out of control. I haven't heard anything to substantiate it though.

The news reports confirmed that two dogs were tied up and killed at the start of the fire. I've not seen anything to confirm that they had any part in the fire starting.

The news report said one dog survived.

What the news reports I saw DIDN'T say, was that these two guys were backpackers. The reason the news reporters didn't say this, I presume, is because the term "backpacker" is still not clear with the general population, (including the news hairdos) for some strange reason. I know I have to explain what it is to people all the time. Seems weird, since I have been at it for 40 years, off and on, and it has had that term since before I was into it.

So, now I am GLAD that most people don't know what backpacking is. I would not like to see a headline that says "Backpackers Caused Wallow Fire." That would really bite. This fire burned up Fish Creek Trail #60, for which I will be able to find no forgiveness in my little heart. http://hikearizona.com/photo.php?ZIP=43714 No forgiveness. Ever.

Incidentally, it did not totally burn up Bear Wallow Wilderness, and I would bet we will see a reopening of that area sooner than many other areas.

But I liked Fish Creek better. It is (or was) similar to Bear Wallow, but connects to the Black River in the NF instead of on the Rez, and it had very, very few visitors. I am told that about the lower mile or so of it did not burn. Let's hope that is a true story. I heard it directly from the trail crew leader, who flew over the area. But he said that lower section will experience devastating flood damage.

These guys were redneck backpackers from Benson, carrying rifles. Nothing exactly wrong with carrying rifles, mind you, but it is unusual for backpackers to do so.

I have mixed emotions on the fate of these two. One side of me screams that these guys are dungholes and they should be tied to burning tree's in a raging forest fire for sentencing. On top of that in America today it pays to be a moron and they may even get a reality TV show on FOX in a few months starring them on how to burn down a beautiful forest and make $$$ from it.


I'll bet everyone (especially residents in the WM area) want too shoot the messenger which in this case are these 2 guys leaving a fire going on a windy and dry day. THIS FIRE WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, no matter what. Would we all feel better and the forest be any better off if a dry lightning strike on the same day, in the same spot got the forest cooking?


The real culprit here is years of forest mismanagement. I've met a bunch of passionate USFS/NPS/BLM employees as well as people over the years whose lights are on. They know what needs to be done. However politics (enviromentalists vs. forest/mineral interests) make the obvious solutions impossible to happen. Everyone must remember due to poor forest management practices and politics these fires WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN.

Everyone I know who lives in the White Mtns., from the White Mtn. Conservation League treehuggers to the Outlaw Trail ATV rednecks WANTS FOREST THINNING. All the local politicians want it, too. (Not sure about the outside agitators from Tucson and Phoenix.) When forest thinning is done, sometimes we are a bit uncomfortable with the results. But we do know it will take only a few years to start looking natural again, and that it's better than scorched earth that may never grow back after a crown fire. Most of the residents do want it, though.

It's true that employees of the Forest Service, most notably those stationed at Alpine Ranger District, had been talking amongst themselves for over a decade, saying that if a fire got started down in that Bear Wallow area under the right conditions it would be unstoppable. I know this because I know some of them, and they told me that.

So, it's true that given the fact there was little if any thinning being done that far south, that it was inevitable that this fire would get started. What saved Alpine, Nutrioso, Greer and Eagar was the forest thinning that had been done since the Rodeo-Chediski Fire of 2002. The forest thinning was concentrating around the towns first. This is because so few acres per year were going to be thinned they figured they had better save the towns first. For which many of us are grateful. Very few acres were actually thinned in comparison to how much needed to be done.

This fire WAS inevitable in a drought year. That is what a lot of people don't get. It was bound to happen in the right conditions. And the right conditions occurred in late May and early June of this year--after a very dry winter and spring we then had sustained and gusty winds for many days.

I have the same feelings about these fires, as horrible as they are and as angry as one can get over who started them, they are only a lightning strike away. As to forest management, check out the Four Forest Initiative, an ambitious program of finally doing something about it. And it won't be easy or painless, one of the first projects to actually do something about it will be in a very beautiful area below Mt Humphreys, and for a year or so is going to look pretty "ravaged." Tough decisions all around.

Liz - I strap a rifle to my pack when on longer trips on a frequent basis; an SBR M4, in fact. Not because I'm hunting, a survivalist, or other kook; but because the mere sight of it keeps both hippies and right-wing whack-jobs away from me equally well (The added weight is a small price to pay for that satisfaction) and you never know when you are going to stumble upon a pot plantation or meth cook; especially on the backside of the Rincons. I'm sure most people see it and assume that I'm yet another unbalanced combat vet who can't sleep at night without his weapon and so be it - they leave me alone then.

That said, 90% of the people you run into carrying a rifle and a large pack who aren't wearing a badge are either hunting or playing army. Most hunters tend to be just as respectful of the land as hikers (Many even more so) and take it as a personal matter of responsibility to be a steward of their preferred hunting grounds. This is usually passed from generation-to-generation. I know it was in my family. With that in mind, these guys might have been out playing army or target shooting (That's my decidedly uneducated guess about the matter.) That crowd tends to be less, well..."responsible." Exhibit A is the fire that started on Lemmon earlier this summer that forced closure of the road for several days spraked by a ricochet from someone shooting near Hitchcock (An area FAR too close to the highway and populated areas for anyone to be shooting in!! :SB: )

Anyway, the other problem you mentioned was "Outside agitators" from Tucson and Phoenix. Are you referring to the Sierra Club or some other group? Just for the record, the Sierra Club down here has always supported responsible forest management. I can't speak for further up in the state or back at the "Home Office." If anyone asked me (Which no one did or likely ever wanted to) I would suggest that it is high time to let people with advanced degrees in Forest Ecology start managing the forests with an eye toward biodiversity and responsible use planning. Let these people make the decisions and stand, collectively, behind them. Americans have a terrible habit of listening to a talking-head and thinking that they are now empowered to speak intelligently about a subject. Even more dangerous are the folks who think pseudo-science or conspiracy theories are “Truth.” This must change - let the people with the REAL credentials tell us how to keep the forests healthy so that we may all enjoy them. End of sermon.

I agree with you on the above points. Especially regarding forest management.

I've been known to carry a handgun, but usually only when warned by FS personnel that they have actually seen possibly rabid animals in an area, such as the Blue Range.

azbackpackr wrote:I've been known to carry a handgun, but usually only when warned by FS personnel that they have actually seen possibly rabid animals in an area, such as the Blue Range.

Yes, but I'm a wacky, off-beat type!

jeffmacewen wrote:

azbackpackr wrote:I've been known to carry a handgun, but usually only when warned by FS personnel that they have actually seen possibly rabid animals in an area, such as the Blue Range.

Yes, but I'm a wacky, off-beat type!

Are you rabid?