The operative legal word here is "recklessly". Using a signal flare for its intended purpose is not "reckless", while using the same signal flare for practically any other purpose could easily be construed as "reckless".
Was this signal flare a handheld flare or an arial flare? Does anyone know?
Assuming it was an arial signal flare, personally, I wonder if he used one that was designed to be used over land. Few are. Most are for marine environments. I would suggest that, if he used an arial flare designed for marine-use, that could easily be judged as reckless. But, if he used an arial flare designed for land-use, that would not be reckless. That would be proper use of an safety device according to its intended design.
I agree that it is sad that the media focus so often habitually slides to fomenting conflict for ratings rather than using a tragic event to focus on education and prevention. The media could eaily use this occasion to spread knowledge that could perhaps help lessen the frequency of fires while simultaneously encouraging people to prepare better both for walking in the wilds and for potentially uprooting events.
Stay safe,
J.T.