Laguna Fire Op-ed

Image courtesy of Tina Kleckner

By Jarred Conley

Over the past several weeks, I’ve been vocal about my concerns regarding the decision by the Santa Fe National Forest to “manage” a naturally started fire that began with a lightning strike in late June. Rather than allowing it to burn naturally within a controlled area or suppressing it once it was clear the fire was moving toward structures, livestock, or heavy fuel loads, they chose to actively expand the fire by igniting an additional 13,000 acres by hand and air. This was done under the claim that it would help create a resilient ecosystem and prevent future catastrophic wildfires. Ironic, isn’t it?

The result is the 17,500-acre Laguna Fire. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. This was never the right time to light a fire of that size. Late June is historically one of the hottest, driest times of the year in northern New Mexico. The risk was known. The weather patterns are predictable. Snowpack and fuel moisture levels were already pointing to high fire danger.

​On February 18, 2025, the Santa Fe National Forest Service issued a public notice stating that it would not move forward with any prescribed burns in the spring. The decision was attributed to “current weather conditions” and a shift in focus toward preparing for the upcoming fire season. The message was made clear and visible. It was released in all capital letters, headlined PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY UPDATE, and paired with a large “Prescribed Fire UPDATE” graphic. This type of announcement suggests that, as early as February, the Santa Fe National Forest Service recognized the landscape might already have been too dry or unstable to safely conduct prescribed or controlled burns or “managed” fires. It also points to the possibility that the agency anticipated a difficult fire season ahead. The timing of the post, issued in February rather than in April or May, underscores how early those concerns may have emerged.
​
"PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY UPDATE: Due to current weather conditions, the Santa Fe National Forest will not implement any prescribed fire this spring. Instead, the forest will focus on preparing resources for the upcoming fire season."
— Santa Fe National Forest, February 18, 2025

A decision to cancel all spring fire activity is not typically made without some level of data and forecasting. The Santa Fe National Forest Service has access to decades of historical fire behavior, live fuel moisture readings, satellite imagery, and predictive models. When an entire prescribed fire season is called off before winter is even over, it raises the possibility that multiple indicators were already pointing to elevated risk. While the public may not know the full scope of the internal analysis that led to the February 18 announcement, the nature and timing of the message suggest the concerns were significant.

That context is what makes subsequent actions difficult to understand. If conditions in February were concerning enough to halt all prescribed fire, it is reasonable to ask why the Santa Fe National Forest Service later moved forward with igniting 13,000 acres in late June. The same conditions that prompted the February decision may have still been present or even worsened. The February 18 post remains a public record that reflects an awareness of risk. If circumstances changed between February and June, the public has not yet been shown how those new conditions justified such a significant shift in strategy.

My issue is not with the firefighters or independent contractors who worked to contain the fire. I’m grateful for the men and women on the ground who did everything they could, and I know my sentiments are shared within the community. My frustration is with the decision makers at the Santa Fe National Forest who signed off on this ignition and continued to call it a “managed fire” even after it was no longer within control. Using a natural lightning strike as a reason to then ignite thousands of additional acres by hand and air is not transparency. It’s manipulation. That’s not a natural fire. That’s a decision.

The burn took place around the La Presa Drainage, a critical component of the Rio Chama Watershed. This area should have been protected from the start, not after the fire escaped. It wasn’t until Southwest Area Incident Management Team 1 took over, under the leadership of Operations Section Chief Jayson Coil, that the drainage finally got the attention it needed. Prior to that, there was no indication that its significance was being acknowledged or protected.

The impacts of this fire are widespread. Ranchers lost livestock, and still continue to do so. Grazing allotments have mostly been reduced to ash. Wildlife, including elk calves and deer fawns, were caught during their most vulnerable season. Smoke settled into the valleys for days, worsening health issues for people who had no way to escape the air or cool their homes with air conditioning. Some families were stuck indoors during the hottest part of the year.

Water used to fight the fire was pulled from the Rio Chama and Abiquiu Lake at a time when farmers in the Abiquiu Valley were already under water curtailment. Tourism has taken a hit. Outdoor recreation was shut down. And the insurance consequences are just beginning. Classifying this as a wildfire instead of a fuels treatment opens the door for cancellations and premium increases, with long-term effects on our local economy.

Carson National Forest has conducted prescribed/controlled burns with far more caution, using seasonally appropriate timing and scale. They’ve shown that not every fuels treatment needs to become a runaway disaster.

Mechanical thinning also remains a proven tool. It can reduce fuel loads without smoke, without destroying watersheds, and without putting firefighting resources in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s effective and deserves far more investment and attention than it currently receives.

The public deserves answers. What did this ignition cost? Where is the burn plan? Was NEPA followed? Were watershed protections built into the planning? If this was about forest health, it should have been done when the timing was right, not for convenience, not to avoid spending local budget funds, and not at the expense of public land and public trust. Providing the public with a link to a several hundred or thousand-page plan is not acceptable. These are government employees. They should be held accountable and made to show clear, easy-to-understand information.

If there’s a loophole allowing the Santa Fe National Forest to burn at this scale without consequence, costing taxpayers more than five billion dollars in just three and a half years, it needs to be closed.

This wasn’t stewardship. It was carelessness. The Santa Fe National Forest has consistently posted biased photos and narratives to defend their actions, while ranchers and residents have shared photos showing the devastation left behind. The consequences—financial, ecological, and human—are ones we’ll be dealing with for a long time.

Image courtesy of Tina Kleckner