BANFF – Highly-trained wildlife experts in Banff National Park relentlessly tried to convince their superiors and media relations office for almost a month to let the public know a reported cougar attack was fabricated.
Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) documents show the wildlife team’s exhaustive efforts to let the public know, based on evidence, the cougar attack reported on Feb. 12 by a Calgary man was fake, yet it wasn’t until March 7 that Parks Canada finally issued a statement noting no wildcat DNA was detected.
Two days after the reported incident, Banff National Park wildlife ecologist-veterinarian Bryan Macbeth said Parks Canada needs to come out with a strong statement “refuting this nonsense” in response to Spencer Weilermann giving an exclusive interview to CTV on Feb. 14 detailing the fabricated attack.
In that Feb. 14 email to colleagues and superiors, including media spokespeople, Macbeth said the reports were an “egregious misrepresentation of the facts” and “will only serve to increase public concern.”
“This risks making our FU (field unit), and my team in particular, look deceptive and incompetent as we will not be undertaking further action based on the facts at hand,” he wrote.
“We are already getting questions on actions to date from across the board, and are not allowed to speak to media directly.”
The email threads also showed the expert wildlife team was feeling demoralized by the media handling of the Oct. 2023 fatal grizzly bear attack in the Red Deer Valley area of the national park – in which Lethbridge couple Doug Inglis and Jenny Gusse, both 62, and their dog were killed.
In the days following the reported cougar attack, Banff’s resource conservation manager Dylan Spencer sent a note to Macbeth and other members of the team including Blair Fyten, Mike Grande, Eric Knight, Sarah Fassina, David Laskin, and Simon Ham thanking them for a “timely, systematic, coordinated and highly professional response to the purported cougar attack.”
He said many of these resource conservation staff also responded to the fatal grizzly bear attack near the Red Deer Valley area, noting the media situation surrounding that and this event had been challenging and their ongoing professionalism was appreciated.
(In the grizzly mualing case, Parks Canada has refused to let the wildlife team members talk to the media as is past practice, only releasing written statements with scant details).
“I’d also like to acknowledge that on top of the former, cumulative stressors such as still processing the Red Deer incident, waiting confirmation on terms, turnover, loss of CoRe funding for bison, and others are certainly stressful on you all,” Spencer wrote.
On Feb. 12, Weilermann used his cellphone to call for help at approximately 10:30 a.m. to report he had fought off a cougar about five kilometres up the Rockbound Lake trail near Castle Junction, about 33 kilometres west of the Banff townsite.
The 23-year-old Calgarian told Parks Canada the cougar had jumped on him from behind, then tumbled over an escarpment together, before the cougar disengaged and fled from the area, the ATIP documents noted.
Once Parks Canada arrived at the scene, first aid was administered, forensic samples collected from his glove and swabs were taken for DNA analysis, and Weilermann was subsequently taken to hospital by EMS.
Banff National Park’s public safety and wildlife management staff promptly evacuated other visitors from the area and put a spot closure in place for the Rockbound Lake area including Castle Mountain Lookout and Silverton Falls.
Responding agencies included Banff visitor safety, wildlife-human attack response team, (WHART), Alpine Helicopters, Banff EMS, Banff law enforcement, Lake Louise RCMP, Lake Louise fire department, and Lake Louise/Yoho/Kootenay wildlife team.
According to the ATIP documents, the response cost about $10,000.
The next day, Macbeth and human-wildlife conflict specialist Blair Fyten told the media relations office that an extensive on-the-ground search, including with a third-party houndsman with decades of experience, confirmed there was no cougar, according to the ATIP documents.
The email chain also said due to the types of minor injuries observed on Weilermann, “the ambulance attendant did not seem to believe the attack was real.”
In addition, wildlife staff at the scene noted there were no rips or tears on the man’s clothing and no punctures associated with cougar claws or teeth.
A media/external relations spokesperson for Banff National Park told Macbeth and Fyten they were waiting on the superintendent’s office to OK a communication strategy.
The spokesperson said everything had to be considered, along with the reality that at the other end of this story is a human being.
Victoria Hawley, a promotions officer for Banff National Park, said the team has been working closely with the superintendent’s office to confirm a communication strategy and that direction would be forthcoming.
“I understand, and dare I say, share your frustration and concerns related to this incident,” she wrote.
“Our statement attempts to walk the line of correcting misinformation while still working to totally confirm the results, thus showing the high standard of care and protocol we follow where things like this are reported.”
In another email, Macbeth said two wildlife experts did another sweep of the entire area on Feb. 13, and while they encountered the Bow Valley wolf pack, again no evidence of cougar activity was found despite easy tracking in fresh snow.
“We are now confident that the incident was fabricated, but still recommend leaving the closure in place for one week from Tuesday,” he said.
“We also recommended that future media lines clearly state that ‘an extensive investigation by Parks Canada’s wildlife human attack response team has found no evidence that the incident occurred.’”
No such statement was forthcoming. A Feb. 15 statement from Parks Canada said the agency is currently testing forensic samples to corroborate initial findings and to finalize the investigation, and the closure remained in place.
Once the preliminary forensic results based on DNA taken from Weilermann’s glove and two swabs were back on Feb. 26, Macbeth urged Spencer, who is his immediate boss, and Banff National Park external relations manager Natalie Fay to release a media statement.
Although the final written report was still pending, Macbeth said the lab had already indicated no cougar DNA had been found.
“All loose ends are functionally addressed and wildlife management now consider the investigation closed,” he wrote.
“We’d like to see transparent, fact-based media lines released to reflect the conclusion of our investigation as soon as possible.”
When a draft media statement circulated internally on Feb. 28, indicating only human DNA had been found and the investigation was considered closed, the wildfire specialists remained frustrated there was still resistance from the media department to spell out there was no cougar attack.
“Should there not be some mention of the fact that no signs of cougar activity were identified? Seems like that’s a pretty huge gap in these media lines and again confuses the public and leaves us open to criticism,” wrote Macbeth.
On the morning of March 7, Macbeth again asked when Parks Canada’s media relations staff would release a statement, reiterating he had spoken to the lab again that morning which had confirmed there were no changes.
He said as previously recommended, a media statement could be released with preliminary results in this case since only presence or absence data was being sought, not genotyping an individual.
He said his team continued to get questions from the public that they could not cannot answer effectively or timely.
“Looking forward to putting this one to bed,” he said.
In response, media relations staff indicated a media statement was approved a week earlier but was awaiting the written DNA report before releasing it.
“We have an approved media statement ready to go, we’ve just been waiting for confirmation that we’ve received the official lab report,” wrote Fay.
“Last I heard we only had preliminary results. If we have the final report, please let me know and we will share our statement.”
The email threads also showed the expert wildlife team had serious concerns about how the closure of the area was initially handled.
Fyten said he was “utterly confused and frustrated” to learn the wildlife team had been told to change the wording on the closure notice to go on the park’s website to “Parks Canada working in the area.”, rather than “cougar in area” or “wildlife incident under investigation” as proposed by the wildlife crew.
“Knowing that we might get questioned on our wording, we softened the message by saying ‘cougar in area’ rather than saying ‘cougar incident in area’,” he said in a Feb. 14 email to Spencer.
“The only other closure I know of that has somewhat of a similar reason is the closure we put on the Ya Ha Tinda Ranch during elk captures, and it clearly states for the “safety of research staff.”
Based on what the on-the-ground investigation had turned up, Fyten said there were no plans to go back into the area and he was seeking answers from his superiors on why they were going against normal protocols.
“Quite frankly, I am embarrassed to post this closure notice and or ask wildlife staff to do it, and we anticipate additional calls from the public about it,” he said.
“The spot closure we currently have in place is more suited for the situation at this point.”
The wildlife team later raised red flags about superintendent Sal Rasheed’s order to remove the closure on Feb. 21 when Parks Canada’s media office had yet to release statements that the cougar attack had been fabricated based on the wildlife team’s expert recommendations.
Macbeth said this approach caused confusion for the public and stakeholders and “unnecessary difficulty for my team.”
“Combined with our mix of inaccurate and evasion comms for this incident it also ended up making my team look incompetent in the eyes of stakeholders and the public when we could not easily explain why we’re removing the closure before the investigation was concluded,” Macbeth wrote.
Spencer, as the resource conservation manager, had told the wildlife team it must be done regardless.
He said “after some back and forth this morning” in which he communicated rationale for waiting – standard approval, forensic results, evidence-based on closure lifting, Rasheed wanted the Rockbound closure lifted.
Macbeth said in a March 21 email to Spencer that he wasn’t impressed, noting the superintendent’s heavy-handed approach may one day come back to “bite” the field unit and the agency “hard”.
“This is yet another example of the FUS (field unit superintendent) not listening to or considering the expertise of the wildlife management program, based on personal whims rather than existing protocol, science, or best practices, or seemingly common sense,” he wrote.
“Makes it hard to come into work and deal with this daily and really takes a mental health toll on all of us. I’ll add this incident to the pile.”
Fyten, too, expressed frustration about Parks not being fully open and transparent with the public throughout the email chain, but also about Rasheed’s demand to lift the closure when there was no public messaging the cougar attack had not occurred.
“Likewise I have huge concerns over this unfounded approach being dictated to us once again with no explanation or consult. When the team asks what’s going on it’s really hard to give an explanation, I can see why they feel demoralized,” he wrote.
“We’re one of the most highly respected wildlife groups within and outside the agency for the team we’ve built and our accomplishments. This is clearly being eroded to make us look unprofessional and like we don’t know what we’re doing,” he added.
“It takes years to build confidence and respect back in the community from something you can lose in days."
Fyten said human-wildlife safety and coexistence guidelines for Banff, Yoho and Kootenay, which were worked on for two years, clearly define roles, responsibilities and protocols of different functions within the field unit for wildlife incidents.
“The park management plan even refers to the development of these guidelines, which appear to be stalled out on this field unit, but yet are in the final stages of approval in district west. We would not likely be having this discussion if this was approved in the BFU (Banff Field Unit),” he wrote.
On Feb. 21, in an email to the resource conservation manager, Macbeth said field signage had been pulled from the hostel, chalets were notified and the trail was fully open, despite there being no approved or concurrent public messaging about the true facts surrounding the incident.
But, like the bear attack in the Red Deer River area, he said the superintendent’s “unilateral actions” have once again placed his team in the “awkward position” of having to explain to stakeholders and the public as to why we were taking a “seemingly incongruous action.”
“Once again my front line team and program is tossed under the bus to look incompetent, disorganized, deceptive and unprofessional,” he said.
“We have worked for many years to build positive relationships with wildlife stakeholders and park visitors in the BFU based on an agency leading reputation for operational excellence and professionalism in wildlife management,’ he wrote.
“In addition to direct impacts on the mental health of my team, the FUS’s (field unit superintendent) actions are increasingly jeopardizing these efforts and the team’s reputation more broadly.
“I continue to struggle to understand how damaging the wildlife team’s credibility serves the field unit, FUS or the Agency.”
Macbeth said he hopes Parks Canada can eventually get to a better place with wildlife communications in Banff National Park field unit.
“We never used to have these issues in any shape or form,” he said, noting it outwardly appears the same restrictions and are not happening outside of resource conservation.
“The current approach is unnecessary and having a significant and increasingly negative impacts on the morale and mental health of my team,” he added.
“It is also increasingly damaging the FU’s (field unit’s) credibility on wildlife related topics in the eyes of the public.”
Parks Canada was not immediately available for comment on the ATIP information.