{"id":1403618,"date":"2023-12-20T17:00:00","date_gmt":"2023-12-20T17:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/?p=454734"},"modified":"2023-12-20T17:00:00","modified_gmt":"2023-12-20T17:00:00","slug":"grizzly-bear-poachers-flout-the-endangered-species-act-and-get-away-with-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2023\/12\/20\/grizzly-bear-poachers-flout-the-endangered-species-act-and-get-away-with-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Grizzly Bear Poachers Flout the Endangered Species Act \u2014 and Get Away With It"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Co-published in partnership with High <\/a>Country<\/a> News<\/a> and Montana Free Press<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was hunting<\/span> season in Wyoming\u2019s Shoshone National Forest, and the Marine sniper was alone on a backcountry trail more than an hour\u2019s hike from his vehicle. He carried a camouflage Remington rifle and was in sight of an elk herd when a grizzly bear emerged from the brush. In a series of audio and video recordings from that autumn day in 2015, he narrated what happened next:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cI just got attacked by a grizzly.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI fucking laid into him.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI don\u2019t want a big bear like that where I hunt.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI\u2019m smoking him.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis is destiny. That bear attacked the wrong man.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Finally, after tracking down the federally protected grizzly he had shot, seeing blood along the way, he said, \u201cLooks like I found a dead bear.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kneeling over the dead grizzly with his rifle in hand, the man took selfies and recorded a narration of his wilderness adventure. The bear\u2019s coat was splattered in blood. The Marine cut off one of its claws then continued his hunt, spending two more nights in the woods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It wasn\u2019t until he completed his hunt several days later that he reported the bear\u2019s death, as required by federal law. By then, investigators were already on the case, alerted to the grizzly\u2019s killing by an anonymous tipster who had encountered the Marine during his trip. The Marine kept the bear claw as a souvenir, the tipster told investigators, according to their report<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Marine, on reserve duty at the time, told U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents that the bear charged him. The killing was in self-defense, he said. He was \u201chappy for the experience and thought it was pretty cool.\u201d After killing the bear, the Marine admitted, he went on to kill an elk that he did not tag, ignoring his legal obligation to register the kill with state officials who issue a set number of hunting licenses each year. His plan, he told investigators, was to illegally use his tag for a future hunt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The Marine, whose name is redacted in the report, had a history of legal infractions, the agents soon discovered, including a warning from a Wyoming wildlife law enforcement officer for harming or killing a kit fox. They seized his recording devices. Besides photos of the dead bear and elk, they found pictures of a bald eagle carcass. The Marine claimed he had nothing to do with the bird\u2019s death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Killing an endangered or threatened species in self-defense is not a crime. Cutting off a grizzly\u2019s claw for a souvenir, however, is a clear violation of the Endangered Species Act and associated regulations. In their incident report, the feds determined that the Marine had likely violated a slew of federal and state laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The hunter was found guilty of wasting an elk under a Wyoming state law and ordered to pay a $640 fine. A federal prosecutor, however, declined to bring charges<\/a> under the ESA. The Marine faced no consequences for desecrating a protected grizzly bear.<\/p>\n\n\n

\"\"\n
Photographs from the Aldrich Creek grizzly investigation report show a deceased adult male grizzly bear with one missing claw on its right front paw on Oct. 8, 2015.Photo: Obtained by The Intercept<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n

A Failure to Protect<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Steve Stoinski was one of two Fish and Wildlife Service agents who interviewed the Marine. Based out of Lander, Wyoming, Stoinski had spent much of his adult life investigating wildlife crimes in the American West before retiring in 2020. He remembers the case well \u2014 especially the Marine\u2019s shifting version of events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cParts of his story were just too hard to believe,\u201d Stoinski recalled in an interview with The Intercept. \u201cOne minute he\u2019s underneath it, shooting it. The other minute, he\u2019s not being touched by it and firing a shot two feet away but couldn\u2019t hit it.\u201d Still, the Justice Department\u2019s decision not to prosecute was no surprise. Stoinski knew he and his partner were facing an uphill battle. The dismemberment of the bear was apparently not compelling enough for the U.S. attorney\u2019s office to take the case. And with no direct witnesses and a victim that couldn\u2019t speak even if it were alive, it would be next to impossible to disprove the claims of self-defense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYou can\u2019t charge people what you think they should be charged with,\u201d Stoinski said. \u201cYou can only charge them with what you can really prove beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Marine\u2019s case is hardly an anomaly. Despite the Endangered Species Act\u2019s fearsome reputation as a powerful tool for securing environmental protection, an Intercept investigation drawn from nearly 4,000 pages of Fish and Wildlife Service case files reveals that when it comes to grizzly bears, federal prosecutors rarely bring criminal charges under the landmark law. (The accounts of grizzly bear killings in this article are drawn from those case files, which The Intercept obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Endangered Species Act turns 50 years old this year amid a growing global crisis of biodiversity loss and increasing attacks by right-wing lawmakers who see predator control as a front in the battle over states’ rights. In theory, a law that the Supreme Court has called \u201cthe most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species enacted by any nation\u201d would serve as a critical bulwark against further ecological damage. Under Section 9 of the statute, Congress declared it illegal to kill, harm, harass, or otherwise \u201ctake\u201d protected species; prohibited the transport or possession of such animals or their body parts; and established civil and criminal penalties for violators, including imprisonment of up to a year. Investigations into suspected ESA crimes fall to special agents of the Fish and Wildlife Service, which sits within the Department of the Interior. The investigators hand their files off to Justice Department prosecutors, who make the final call on whether to bring a case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The factors that shape those decisions, however, reveal the limits of the country\u2019s most famous conservation law. From 2015 through 2022, according to the records reviewed by The Intercept, <\/strong>the Fish and Wildlife Service completed 118 investigations for violations of the ESA stemming from the killing or harming of grizzly bears in their primary range in the Lower 48: Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Fourteen involved bears preying on livestock, while 74 others involved claims of self-defense, most stemming from hunters encountering bears in their habitats. Many of the cases contain evidence to support such claims. At least a dozen, however, show clear and, in some cases, flagrant ESA violations \u2014 from hunters admitting to stalking grizzlies before killing them, to dismembering animals for trophies, to describing efforts to cover up their kills. And yet only five of the cases led to criminal penalties under the ESA, and only two led to a prison sentence, one of which was overturned on appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grizzly bears were added to the endangered species list in 1975 and are currently considered a threatened species. An iconic symbol of American wilderness and a conservation success story, the bears are beloved by millions of people around the world. That adoration makes grizzlies a revealing barometer: If the ESA is failing to protect even them, what hope is there for the many imperiled species that don\u2019t have a well-funded army of human defenders?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Fish and Wildlife Service spokesperson, in response to a series of questions from The Intercept, said the agency \u201cprioritizes the investigation of take of ESA-protected species domestically and abroad,\u201d including grizzly bears, and \u201cworks effectively and efficiently with state partners across the country.\u201d (The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.)<\/p>\n\n\n

\"\"\n
Two surviving male grizzly bear cubs after their mother was shot by a hunter who said he mistakenly identified the mother grizzly as a black bear. Steve Stoinski, right, transported the cubs to a zoo in Nebraska to prevent them from being euthanized on Aug. 17, 2017.Photo: Courtesy of Steve Stoinski<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n

In his corner of Wyoming, Stoinski said, the story of the grizzly bear over the half-century since the ESA\u2019s passage shows how the law\u2019s lofty goals continue to clash with ingrained cultural beliefs. \u201cIt\u2019s a rural area \u2014 lots of ranching influence, that Western cowboy mentality, if it isn\u2019t in the greatest interest of cattle, then it needs to be removed from the landscape,\u201d he said. \u201cThat generally seems to be the way some people operate \u2014 shoot these bears, shovel, and shut up about it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The experiences of seasoned federal agents like Stoinski raise serious questions about the nation\u2019s commitment and ability to uphold the ESA. In the case of the grizzly bear, the data and associated case reports obtained by The Intercept show a federal government that has failed to robustly enforce the historic statute despite evidence that it is being flouted on the ground. The upshot is diminished security for grizzly bears, current and former federal officials say, a downstream consequence of the Fish and Wildlife Service losing its way \u2014 chasing headlining-making cases that span the globe while letting its domestic operations wither.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey\u2019re stuck spinning their wheels, trying to spend most of their time on these international smuggling cases, when they have so many incredible cases in their backyard that are just considered \u2018game warden\u2019 cases,\u201d said one Interior Department official. The official, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, said that this dynamic has huge implications for the grizzly bear: \u201cThey might as well be delisted right now with how we\u2019re acting.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No Deterrence<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Over the course of more than three years, starting in 2015, Stoinski led a probe into another grizzly killing in the Shoshone National Forest. His investigation of the so-called Barbers Point grizzly (a reference to the 4-year-old sow\u2019s kill site) culminated in a nearly 300-page case file \u2014 and one of the only ESA convictions in the records reviewed by The Intercept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At points, Stoinski\u2019s report reads like a dark episode of the popular \u201cYellowstone\u201d TV show, with confidential informants passing on word of incriminating barroom boasts and a pair of offenders making every attempt to bury evidence of their crimes \u2014 sometimes literally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

A week after a pair of motorists discovered the dead bear on the side of the road, Stoinski made a critical break in the investigation: A source turned in an audio recording surreptitiously obtained at a bar 30 miles south of the kill site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the recording, a man boasted of killing the bear, which was well known to locals and not considered a problem animal. He described how he and a friend encountered the bear twice \u2014 harassing and throwing rocks at her on the first occasion, then killing her on the second. \u201cI don\u2019t give a fuck. I would have been in jail by now if they would have found out about it,\u201d the man said as he pulled up photos and videos to show other bar patrons. \u201cThere are so many of those cock suckers around here, I don\u2019t give a fuck anymore. Fuck them!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The recording led Stoinski to two residents of Dubois, Wyoming: 27-year-old Kelly J. Grove, the man on the tape, and 25-year-old Matthew John Brooks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Stoinski first interviewed Grove, he denied having anything to do with the grizzly\u2019s killing. \u201cAs much as I would have fucking loved to, I didn\u2019t shoot that fucking bear,\u201d Grove said \u2014 though he applauded whoever did: \u201cThey should be given a gold medal.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stoinski continued to pursue the case, interviewing witnesses and collecting evidence. In the summer of 2018, Grove and Brooks pleaded guilty<\/a> to violating the ESA. In their plea agreement interviews, the duo said they decided to kill the bear to improve the poor hunting season they\u2019d been having. Late one night, they staked out the site where they had seen the bear guarding an elk carcass. To prevent GPS tracking, the men turned off their cellphones and stuffed them in the console of the vehicle. When the bear emerged, they stepped out in the dark, each armed with a rifle. Brooks fired. The bear wheeled and headed back for the trees, where it let out a dying moan. The two men left the scene, but not before dusting the tracks left by their vehicle. Weeks later, they made a midnight journey to a remote creek where they buried Brooks\u2019s rifle and the paperwork associated with the weapon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brooks admitted to prosecutors that he pulled the trigger and said it was the most irresponsible period of his life. Grove was less contrite. When asked why they killed the grizzly, he responded, \u201cBecause we hate bears up there.\u201d He added, \u201cI thought it was great! Another dead bear!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A federal judge ordered them to pay thousands of dollars in restitution, temporarily revoked their hunting privileges, and placed them on unsupervised probation for five years. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the intent of ESA prosecutions is to deter future violations of wildlife laws, it didn\u2019t work on Grove. Just a few months after his sentencing, he was convicted<\/a> on charges related to deer and elk poaching under Wyoming state law. The federal judge in the Barbers Point case then revoked his probation and sentenced him to six months in prison \u2014 half the maximum sentence allowable under the ESA. (Grove declined to comment for this story. Brooks did not respond to a request for comment.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like the handful of other convictions, the Barbers Point case broke from the typical trajectory of grizzly investigations in the West. As the Fish and Wildlife records reveal, most cases die the moment that a human \u2014 typically a hunter creeping around bear habitat at dawn or dusk \u2014 describes their fear during a bear encounter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Making ESA cases more difficult still is a long-standing Justice Department policy requiring the government to prove that a suspect knew they were killing an endangered or threatened species when they did the deed. Known as the McKittrick policy \u2014 named after a Montana poacher who was convicted under the ESA for killing a Yellowstone wolf \u2014 the rule was established in 1999 as the result of a winding legal fight that made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Among conservationists and wildlife investigators, it is derisively known as the \u201cI thought it was a coyote<\/a>\u201d rule. When it comes to bears, if a hunter kills a grizzly but claims they thought it was a black bear, for example, the case is often dead on arrival.<\/p>\n\n\n

\"Cinnamon\n
A cinnamon-colored black bear near Soda Butte Creek in Yellowstone National Park in May 2015.Photo: Neal Herbert\/NPS<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n

In 2013, two environmental groups sued<\/a> the Justice Department over the policy, arguing that it was fueling the unlawful killing of Mexican wolves. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed the claim because the plaintiffs were not able to cite \u201cany specific instance where the DOJ has declined to prosecute a wolf killing because of the McKittrick policy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When it comes to grizzlies, however, federal prosecutors declined to take on at least 18 cases under the ESA from 2015 to 2022 based on such claims of mistaken identity, according to the documents obtained by The Intercept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In one of the most explicit examples, a rancher living near Big Timber, Montana, buried three bullets in a grizzly bear that had wandered onto his property in 2016. He told law enforcement officials that he went out to investigate a disruption in a cattle enclosure on his property in the early morning and encountered a bear. It was dark out, and he said he didn\u2019t know what kind of bear it was, but he shot at it first when it started moving toward him and again when it began approaching his girlfriend. He only realized it was a grizzly, he said, after the bear bled out on the property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fish and Wildlife Service investigators later discovered several discrepancies in the rancher\u2019s story and concluded that he \u201cshot the grizzly bear in defense of his cattle and not necessarily in defense of his life.\u201d The prosecutor who reviewed the case agreed that the rancher\u2019s account was \u201cimplausible,\u201d \u201cinconsistent,\u201d and \u201csuspect in numerous respects.\u201d Nevertheless, the Justice Department declined to bring charges. The reason was clear. \u201cThe primary difficulty we would encounter,\u201d the prosecutor explained in an email<\/a>, \u201cis proving that [the rancher] knew he was shooting a grizzly bear.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n