One June 17, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team gambled that nobody would happen upon a trap site near Yellowstone Park where a 430# male grizzly had just been caught in a foot snare, tranquilized, and released. Wrong. The bear killed 70 year-old botanist Erwin Evert. The government gambled. A citizen lost.
Evert, a prominent botanist from Oak Park, IL, had a summer cabin on Kitty Creek, roughly seven miles from the East Entrance of Yellowstone National Park. There were 13 other cabins in the area. A U.S. Forest Service road ends just beyond the cabins, then trail # 756 leads up Kitty Creek into the Shoshone National Forest.
The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) gambled there was no need to warn cabin owners it was trapping grizzlies up Kitty Creek. The IGBST gambled there was no need to post warning signs at the trailhead. The IGBC gambled that all it had to do was post sign warning signs in the immediate area surrounding the bear trapping site. The IGBST gambled, Erwin Evert died.
The IGBST could easily have prevented Evert's death by closing the Kitty Creek trail and drainage. Instead, the IGBST gambled that it could just close a tiny trapping site--now Erwin Evert is dead.
A July 16 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service report says that after releasing a grizzly at bear trapping site #3, IGBST employees took down their warning signs and left. That fatal mistake cost Erwin Evert his life. But even if signs had been left up at the trapping site, why would the IGBST gamble by allowing citizens to get so close to grizzlies?
The IGBST uses deer and elk carcasses to bait its traps. All wildlife agencies and land management agencies warn the public that its incredibly dangerous to get close to a grizzly on a carcass. For more than 25 years the IGBST has gambled that nobody would get killed at a trap site baited with a carcass. The IGBST gambled, Erwin Evert died.
Last May, near the West Side of Yellowstone National Park, the Gallatin National Forest closed an area near Hegben Lake because grizzlies were feeding on animal carcasses. A press release said several square miles of public land were closed. The Gallatin National Forest included a map of the area that was closed. Since the area was closed, nobody died.
The IGBST didn't close the Kitty Creek drainage because it fears there would be a public backlash. People wouldn't allow the IGBST to close public lands just so it can trap bears for the data needed to estimate the Yellowstone area grizzly population. So the IGBST's bear trapping is a clandestine operation. The IGBST gambles that no one will get hurt.
The government gambled. Erwin Evert died. Was it worth it?
Comments
Well said! What I find equally disturbing is all the lies and misinformation that the IGBST deliberately spread to discredit and disparage the victim, when they already KNEW that they had taken down all the warning signs before Erwin Evert had even left for his hike. Yet they lied to the media and falsely claimed that he ignored the signs. If you review all the lies that IGBST told the media (warning signs, closed trail, Yolanda's employment, knowledge of bear site, etc.), it demonstrates a clear campaign to blame the victim. If the public had first heard that the bear researchers had left a drugged bear without any warning signs or closed trail for an innocent hiker to stumble upon, the public would have been outraged. Thus, the smear campaign by IGBST to con the public and media.
Quite simply, Erwin Evert would be alive today if the IGBST had, even at a minimum, posted warning signs or warned the cabin owners. But, as you say, they gambled on all counts.
Am I missing something here? You claim that government agencies gambled with Erwin Evert's life but leave out some very important details of the events.
Evert’s friend Chuck Neal, a wildlife ecologist who is also the author of Grizzlies in the Mist, is on the record as saying Evert had contacted him before he (Evert) hiked into the area and that he (Evert) knew the area was closed due to relocation and that the area had signs stating such. Neal said he told Evert to 'not go anywhere near it.' Neal says that Evert deliberately took a circular route that led directly into the release area.
While the loss of Evert's life is regrettable, and to what extent the IGBST's actions contributed to his death are debateable, the only person who gambled with the life of Erwin Evert was Erwin Evert himself.
To WYELLOW - Yes, you seem to be missing a brain. Clearly you don't get it. The signs were REMOVED, which normally indicates that the danger is gone. But you also need to read the investigation report better. The only sign of "dangerous bear" that Erwin Evert had seen was at ANOTHER SITE (Site #2) a week earlier. It did not say anything about trapping on it. He called his friend, Chuck about it, and Chuck said that they might possibly be trapping. Erwin never saw any other signs about the area being closed, and kept away from Site 2, which appears to be 45 minutes by horseback away from where he was killed (Site #3). If you look at the map of where they put the signs, they kept them near the trap sites.
Erwin did not even know about Site 3. How could he, when they took the signs down? He was a botanist, and always searching for rare plants off the trail. He did not stick to the trail when he hiked because there are very few rare plants along the way.
Stop blaming the vict
Not sure why they didn't follow the same policies that the rangers used to use inside the boundaries of Yellowstone Park. When I worked there in the 80's- the rangers were in charge of bear management and the grizzly team seemed to work with them if they wanted to trap. I always saw closure signs around any bear trapping activity. They said it was because they wanted to keep public away form smelly carcasses that attract bears
How many newspaper reporters have caused death and hardship just to get a story published? Is there any difference. Sometimes tragic events happen regardless of how careful all involved are. Curiously, the article in the casper Wy newspaper who had the same information as Dave Smith, considered this a tragic event with both parties making mistakes. I know nothing about what goes on in the woods, but seems like your reporter above has an agenda
The bear study team is 100% at fault. It is irrelevant what Evert knew or didn't know about the trapping. The bear study team removed all the warning signs from the site, thus indicating that the area was safe. They removed the signs at 12:30pm and Evert left for his hike at 12:45pm. The bear team is clearly at fault for Evert's death.
I read Dave Smith's reports every day and have followed his coverage of this tragedy and more. I think he asks very thought-provoking questions. His articles are really insightful. I also read other news internet sites daily. What I like about Dave's writing is that he cuts through all the BS and tells it like it is. He asks very challenging questions. In this case, they are probably questions that the bear research team does not want to hear.
It is you, "UNBIASED", who seems to have an agenda.
Interesting line of thought Gail. If you read more carefully, you would clearly see that I am not trying to place blame on anyone. As I said up above both parties made mistakes, ie removing the warning signs is a huge mistake. Trying to go and find bear trappers in the woods to talk to them is a mistake. But if I lived in Wyoming I would probably think twice about walking in "Grizzly bear country" regardless of what the government is doing in the woods. From what I understand most people carry some type of deterrent or a firearm. Also are the woods ever really safe. I imagine that we all take a risk when hiking in the woods. Anyways I am not disagreeing with the authors view of the govermnent, it just seems one sided to me. Do we truely know what either sides motives were that day?
Where do you live, Unbiased?
Does it really matter? If it makes you feel better, the state of Missouri. What does that have to do with anything?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!