CHEYENNE, Wyo. — Renowned wildlife photographer Tom Mangelsen faced criticism in a Wyoming federal magistrate’s court after being found guilty of a minor traffic offense last month. During a recent court session conducted via Zoom, Federal Magistrate Mark Carman, despite recognizing Mangelsen’s impressive photographic contributions, advised the 78-year-old to collaborate more closely with the National Park Service to avoid future conflicts.
Mangelsen, a prominent figure known for his wildlife photography, was cited for obstructing traffic on October 9 after he reportedly drove slowly in front of Grizzly 610—an injured and well-known bear—on a highway in Grand Teton National Park. The incident occurred shortly after the bear had been struck by another vehicle, and Mangelsen’s actions were explained as attempts to protect the animal, which later recovered.
At the virtual hearing, U.S. Assistant Attorney Ariel Calmes suggested a year of unsupervised probation and a fine for Mangelsen, highlighting the need to deter similar behavior in the future. However, Carman opted for a lighter sentence—a $500 fine without probation—stressing that Mangelsen’s actions, although well-intentioned, constituted a clear breach of traffic laws intended to safeguard public safety.
During the hearing, Mangelsen’s defense was robust, with his attorney, Ed Bushnell, presenting extensive testimony and evidence, including bodycam footage and cellphone videos. The legal costs reportedly amounted up to $20,000. Bushnell also called upon retired Grand Teton law enforcement officer Chris Flaherty, who criticized park rangers’ management of the situation on the road that day. Flaherty asserted that slowing down traffic was critical given that the bear’s cubs were also nearby, suggesting that better scene management might have prevented the entire incident.
Carman, while issuing the sentence, pointed out that the case was about the traffic violation, not about grizzly management or any perceived targeting of Mangelsen by authorities. He expressed hope that the experience wouldn’t result in bitterness but would encourage a collaborative approach with park authorities in the future.
Following the hearing, Mangelsen expressed mixed feelings about adopting Carman’s suggested approach to working with the National Park Service, citing previous experiences and current skepticism about achieving a mutual understanding. He maintained his position that the citation was unjust, labeling it as an act of “retaliation and revenge.”
Mangelsen is still considering whether to appeal the decision, reflecting ongoing concerns about the implications of the case for his future activities and broader wildlife conservation efforts.
This dispute highlights ongoing tensions between wildlife advocates and regulatory authorities in managing interactions with iconic species in national parks, particularly in situations where public safety and animal welfare are in conflict. The case of Tom Mangelsen illustrates the complex balance between individual actions and regulatory measures designed to protect both wildlife and people in these cherished natural environments.