JACKSON—Assistant U.S. Attorney Ariel Calmes used the word “outlandish” in closing arguments to describe Tom Mangelsen’s response to a minor traffic violation.
“This is a whole lot of work for probably a $150 ticket,” Calmes told U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Carman during a bench trial in the Clifford P. Hansen Courthouse last week.
That ticket was for allegedly slowing and obstructing traffic at the site where Grizzly 610 — a daughter of record-setting celebrity Grizzly 399 — was lying wounded on the side of Highway 26 in Grand Teton National Park after a vehicle strike.
Mangelsen, a 78-year-old wildlife photographer whose fame has grown alongside the famous Teton grizzly bears, is indeed spending a lot of time and energy defending himself. He’s doing it because he doesn’t believe he broke the law, he told WyoFile.
“I’ll spend probably $20,000 by the time I’m done,” Mangelsen said. “If I get found guilty for slowing down and stopping when the bears are in the road, it’d be a terrible injustice.”
On Friday, Calmes and Mangelsen’s attorney, Ed Bushnell, spent hours examining and cross-examining witnesses and reviewing evidence that included bodycam footage, cellphone videos and schematics of the scene. During an all-day trial that illuminated tensions between Mangelsen and the National Park Service officials who manage roadside grizzlies, the attorneys tried to piece apart what happened the afternoon and evening of Oct. 9, 2023. Grizzly 610, then with three subadult cubs, had been hit that day by what was likely a pickup with “dually” wheels, according to skid marks on the highway surface. After barely moving for hours while injured, the now 18-year-old sow bounced back quickly and found her feet while seemingly healthy, the Jackson Hole News&Guide reported at the time.
The federal government’s case against Mangelsen rests on the eyewitness accounts of two rangers who were on scene: bear management specialist Tyler Brasington and law enforcement officer Brett Timm.
Timm, who issued Mangelsen a mandatory court appearance violation notice, wrote that he “observed a vehicle” driven by the photographer slow to what he guessed was 5 mph near 610’s location while holding up four other vehicles. The ranger felt Mangelsen’s driving could cause a “bear jam,” a term for when traffic builds and people amass because a bruin is in sight.
“In this case on the highway — with an injured grizzly and three yearlings, and we don’t know where they’re at — it [a bear jam] absolutely can’t happen,” Timm told the courtroom during examination.
Mangelsen’s behavior — he drove slowly by the injured Grizzly 610 at least four times that day — was the “most egregious that day,” Timm said.
In the photographer’s defense, Bushnell pulled Timm’s bodycam footage and played it in the federal courtroom to scrutinize the officer’s written account of what occurred. While Timm’s report noted the precise time he said he witnessed Mangelsen slow traffic, that portion of the video, which Bushnell played during the trial, showed the law enforcement officer facing and engaging a visitor in a white van in a highway-side pullout marking the east entrance to the park. Mangelsen was approximately 0.4 miles away, and not in view of the body camera.
Under oath, Timm stuck to his story: That he watched Mangelsen impede four other vehicles over 700 yards away while having a conversation and facing a different direction. The officer turned his head, he said, but not his torso.
“Sir, you saw all that while having contact with the white van?” Bushnell questioned the ranger.
Timm responded, “Yes.”
Bushnell seized on the contention during closing arguments. “There’s no way Mr. Timm could have seen four cars stacked behind Mr. Mangelsen at the time he said he did,” the attorney said. “It just couldn’t have happened.”
Mangelsen’s defense alleged that he was unfairly targeted by Teton Park rangers who were biased against him and exploiting a “subjective” statute. The photographer can be a vocal critic of the park, and he’s repeatedly publicly rebuked an annual elk hunt that’s caused grizzly conflicts, and has come out against research trapping operations to fit GPS collars onto grizzlies.
Timm, however, testified he did not know Mangelsen and had never met him. The ranger, a five-year veteran of Grand Teton, said he wasn’t aware it was Mangelsen until he took possession of his driver’s license. The photographer, who owns a gallery in Jackson and produced a number of photobooks, is famous enough that he’s been featured on CBS News’ 60 Minutes.
Arguing rangers are biased against Mangelsen, Bushnell attempted and failed to get the court to admit a video the photographer secretly recorded of Brasington, the ranger nearest Grizzly 610, from 2021. Mangelsen provided WyoFile with that video, which was recorded in the aftermath of a separate roadside grizzly-related charge against Mangelsen that was later dropped. In it, the park ranger told the photographer other rangers were trying to “roll” him and that he thought it was “inappropriate.”
The court did admit into evidence a witness statement from Brasington about a 2020 incident, which involved Grizzly 399 on a similar stretch of Highway 26. In that statement, Brasington wrote that he told Mangelsen “he could rove and drive by as many times as he would like” and that it was “helpful” because he “has the knowledge to stop and allow the bears to cross the road safely.”
Three years later, Mangelsen was cited for doing the same.
“Did you think you had done anything wrong?” Bushnell asked his client, who responded only, “No.”
Exchanges between Mangelsen and Calmes suggested that relations with some Teton Park officials aren’t great.
The photographer admitted to referring to some law enforcement rangers as a “fuckhead” and “jackass.” Mangelsen was part of an unsuccessful effort to try to reduce the speed limit on Highway 26, currently 55 mph during daylight hours, where Grizzly 610 was hit. He was “disappointed” the park didn’t lower the speed limit, “for the bears,” he told the court.
Carman did not render his verdict during the trial. The magistrate judge said he wanted to review body camera footage and other videos taken by Mangelsen and others before making his judgment. He’ll be issuing a written ruling.
The more I read about the so called rangers in Wyoming I get sick at the disrespect they have for the animals they are suppose to care for. Giving a man a ticket from a judge who is also disrespectful in her opinion of protecting an injured bear is outlandish. You all are paid to respect the wildlife and obviously with your third world torture laws allowing torture to wildlife and not caring that a bear with three cubes has been hit from a truck is disgusting. I will never visit your third world state who tortures wolfs, runs down our wild horses with helicopters and doesn’t care about a bear hit from a vehicle who is not moving is sickening.
As a nature photographer, I understand Tom’s care and concern. However, I agree with rangers that a “bear jam” near a wounded mother with cubs could be dangerous to those getting out of their cars. An agitated, hurt mama bear could be quite unpredictable. I also agree that the cubs were especially vulnerable to being hit. Could a ranger be posted to temporarily slow traffic yet keep it moving? Sad commentary regarding conflicts between wildlife and traffic.
Of course we should include comments by tourists. There are far more tourists than locals on Wyoming’s roads and their insight is valuable. I agree that 55 mph is far too fast for a national park, especially our parks in Wyoming, which have more wildlife than most. It is heartbreaking to see dead wildlife alongside our roads, but especially in national parks, where we should do everything within our power to keep them safe. Lowering the speed limit would be easy and effective.
Its called loving them to death. I remember reading about a guy in Hawaii who got a ticket for constantly harassing whales – apparently they have laws protecting wildlife from getting too much attention. And’ don’t forget, grizzlies are still a threatened and endangered species under the ESA that have enjoyed other protections – so why not extend their protection to include constantly being followed by zealous photographers. Its time to put an end to the great bears being constantly pursued by hoards of photographers – they deserve privacy.
399&610 are bombarded by people and cars because of said photographer making them famous, thus making himself richer .
Last night I watch a documentary on PBS of bear #399, from 2020-2023, with her 4 bear cubs. It was a heartfelt program documenting THIS photographer, his video’s & photo’s….. & the caring he exhibited for all bears, especially #399 & her 4 cubs. In the documentary, there were plenty of bear-jams…. no complaining or tickets! People are interested in wildlife!!! Driving 55 mph on that road probably was the cause a mama bear was hit by a car & injured! Why would such a speed limit be implemented when people come to see wildlife? What are you thinking? I’m sure the game wardens ALL know the photographer & the photo work he’s done in the park for YEARS💗 He does NOT deserve a ticket. Would you rather he speed & hit a cub that comes out of the brush looking for his/her mother? I’d say a ticket for speeding is a bit overzealous. Leave the photographer alone…..
I’ve traveled that stretch of road in the past and if I’m not mistaken there are signs along the road that require slowing down for animals. Sounds like a case of an over-zealous federal employee exerting his authority.
Across the gamut of local, county, state, and federal law enforcement personnel, you hear the most complaints that it’s the Park Rangers who are the worst cops.
I have to ask what’s different about NPS job qualification , training requirements, procedures or management that sets them apart as cops.
Interesting that the US Assistant Attorney, Ariel Calmes, would suggest that a $150.00 citation is not worth fighting. A citation is an accusation of criminal wrongdoing, and a conviction results in some type of criminal record. “Pay it and forget it” is the theory commonly used by the government to blackmail people out of their money for fines. It’s not just that your checkbook is harmed, it’s the fact that your reputation as a good citizen is harmed, if convicted. It’s the government’s responsibility, and its burden, to prove a person is guilty of a crime and to do so “beyond a reasonable doubt”. In my 30 years as a criminal defense attorney, one of the rules I’ve learned is that a law enforcement officer is ALWAYS going to write up his report in a light most favorable to his position. Cross-examination is the only opportunity to question that report and to show bias on the part of the report writer. If it takes time, energy and effort, as well as $20,000 to stand up to a wrongful accusation, so be it! I applaud Mr. Mangelsen’s efforts to defend himself.
What is the objection to a slow speed limit for a mile or so==even 10 miles in areas where wildlife has a fair chance of being on the road? Actually it seems like a good idea and increased safety for both vehicle s and animals.
No one is above the law.
No where is anyone saying he is above the law. Everyone is also innocent until proven guilty and have the right to defend themselves (something it sounds like the US Attorneys office doesn’t like and would just like people to pay their fines and call it a day). In this case the “law” is also very subjective. How slow is too slow? If there are no cars behind you can you create a “bear jam”? Is one car too many? If you are going 45 mph and there are 50 cars behind you is that too slow??? If there is a bear walking along side the road and you slow down so you don’t hit it should it walk into the road, but there are 10 cars behind you are creating a “bear jam” so you should maintain a speed of 55 mph???? I understand what the park is trying to do, but I can also see how it can be abused.
I am in the area now. I think the 55 speed limit is crazy on that road and refuse to do it. First of all, I am new to the area and need to drive slower to figure out where I am going. I need time to think and react. There are a lot of distractions coming at me as a tourist while driving. The mountains and wild life are beautiful . I am trying to enjoy while trying to negotiate my way. Most of us are tourists . We are not aware of the pull offs and road directions. Slower would be better. Also, I am aware that hitting animals like a bear at 55mph is like hitting a Volkswagen at 40 mph. I saw this sign in Colorado once . Safety for my family and the animals is in my mind when I drive. You know that if the speed limit is 55, people will drive 60 or 65mp. I find that most people on their vacation want to slow down. That is why we choose to go on a trip. Having to drive so fast on vacation just gives me more stress. I found people , for the most part, to be kind on this trip. I know that they come here to admire the animals, not mow them down!
I believe these comments should not include tourists. The locals here drive the roads year-round and are far more aware of how to avoid hitting animals AND tourists. I certainly know to slow my speed and watch for wildlife continuously on both sides of the road. At any time, an animal can run into the road; in fact, I expect it.
I agree 55 mph is too fast for that road. Many years ago, I learned my lesson: almost hit a bull moose at night between Colter Bay and Jackson Lake Lodge. Had to lock up my brakes and saw the whites of his eyes in the headlights running to try and avoid me. Speed limit was 45 and I was at least 10 over. I deserved a ticket that night but did not get stopped. In all my visits since I have been hyper-vigilant about wildlife in the road and obeyed the lower limits.
The NPS has jumped the shark and practices hyper enhanced enforcement of even the most petty things. Then the special federal judges that do parks give 80’s cocaine style sentences and their own jails where they treat prisoners like POW’s. The NPS is very un-American
Slowing down to 5 MPH on a federal highway, in the known vicinity of an injured bear?
$150 is enough for delaying traffic, but slowing to 5 MPH without exiting the right-of-way could have caused a serious accident. Further, he was drawing attention to a vulnerable animal that should be left alone. Irresponsible behavior from someone who really ought to know better.
$150 is lenient. Maybe appropriate for a tourist, but not for someone who’s made a living exploiting these bears.
I hope his bill hits $30k, and NPS bans him from the park for a few years for this frivolous nonsense.