The following are prohibited:
(a) Carelessly or negligently throwing or placing any ignited substance or other substance that may cause a fire.
(b) Firing any tracer bullet or incendiary ammunition.
(c) Causing timber, trees, slash, brush or grass to burn except as authorized by permit.
(d) Leaving a fire without completely extinguishing it.
(e) Causing and failing to maintain control of a fire that is not a prescribed fire that damages the National Forest System.
(f) Building, attending, maintaining, or using a campfire without removing all flammable material from around the campfire adequate to prevent its escape.
(g) Negligently failing to maintain control of a prescribed fire on Non-National Forest System lands that damages the National Forest System.
(h) Possessing or using an exploding target or any kind of firework or other pyrotechnic device.
(i) Violating any State law concerning burning or fires or any State law that is for the purpose of preventing or restricting the spread of fire.
(j) Operating or using any internal or external combustion engine without a spark arresting device that is properly installed, maintained, and in effective working order in accordance with USDA Forest Service Standard 5100-1.
[42 FR 2957, Jan. 14, 1977, as amended at 46 FR 33520, June 30, 1981; 73 FR 30307, May 27, 2008; 89 FR 92815, Nov. 25, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., 100 F. Supp. 3d 948 (E.D. Cal. 2015).
· cites it 3× “Section 4435 provides: If any fire originates from the operation or use of any engine, machine, barbecue, incinerator, railroad rolling stock, chimney, or any other device which may kindle a fire, the occurrence of the fire is prima facie evidence of negligence in the…”
Parsons v. United States, 811 F. Supp. 1411 (E.D. Cal. 1992).
· cites it 2× “at 76 and 82 citing 36 CFR 261.5 pp. 332-335 and Forest Service Manual § 5130.”
United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., 879 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 5× “” Defendants address § 13007’s “violation of law” provision, contending plaintiff cannot establish a violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.5 and therefore strict liability is not implicated.”
United States v. Godfrey, 112 F. Supp. 3d 1097 (E.D. Cal. 2015).
“In Count Two, Defendant was charged with causing timber, trees, slash, brush, and grass to burn without a permit, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.5 (c). Id. In Count Three, Defendant was charged with damaging any natural feature or property of the United States, in violation of…”
United States v. S. California Edison Co., 413 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (E.D. Cal. 2006).
“The United States also references separate provisions that prohibit "[clausing timber, trees, slash, brush or grass to burn except as authorized by permit,” 36 C.F.R. § 261.5 (c), and other related regulations.”
United States v. Powers, 129 F.4th 617 (9th Cir. 2025).
“§ 1856 , three counts of building a fire in violation of federal restrictions under 36 C.F.R. § 261.52 (a), and three counts of causing a fire in a national forest without a permit in violation of 36 C.”
United States v. Polaris Indus., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2020).
· cites it 8× “1, 21 and California Civil Code section 3287; (3) violations of California Public Resources 22 Code section 44212 and 36 C.F.R. § 261.5 ; and (4) trespass by fire.”
United States v. Steven Butcher, 377 F. App'x 628 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Butcher’s argument that § 1855 is a lesser-included offense of 36 C.F.R. § 261.5 (e) is equally unavailing.”
United States v. McCulloch, 562 F. Supp. 103 (E.D. Tenn. 1983).
“Defendant appeals from a conviction for violations of 36 C.F.R. 261.5(c) and (d) for causing timber, trees, brush and grass to burn without a permit and knowingly and willfully leaving a fire without completely extinguishing it.”
— 36 C.F.R. § 261.5(c) — 1 case
United States v. McCulloch, 562 F. Supp. 103 (E.D. Tenn. 1983).
“Defendant appeals from a conviction for violations of 36 C.F.R. 261.5(c) and (d) for causing timber, trees, brush and grass to burn without a permit and knowingly and willfully leaving a fire without completely extinguishing it.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.