BELLINGHAM — After nearly two months of back and forth, the Washington State Department of Transportation says it will allow a giant stuffed sloth to remain perched in a tree above Interstate 5, just south of Bellingham. The first sloth, which became a local landmark after appearing in 2024, was taken down by WSDOT in mid-March of 2025. It was quickly replaced, but that new sloth was taken down by WSDOT, too.
- Finally, after a third sloth was seen perched even higher in the trees, WSDOT said it would allow the stuffed animal to remain for the time being.
Why did WSDOT take down the Bellingham sloth?
So why did WSDOT go to such lengths to remove the sloth in the first place, and why did it change its stance?
The agency reported that it initially removed the sloth due to concerns that it distracted drivers.
“There’s a reason an 8-foot sloth hanging from a tree became so popular: It draws a lot of attention. And when you’re driving on the highway, that’s not a good thing. We’ve heard that drivers were slowing down to get a closer look or driving distracted to try to snap a picture,” the department said in a Facebook post.
- Did Bellingham sloth actually cause I-5 car crashes?
But was the sloth really causing problems for drivers? Or was WSDOT just worried that the distraction could become dangerous?
The department maintains a car crash data dashboard that tracks known car accidents across the state. The sloth is located off the northbound side of I-5, alongside of Lake Samish. Between the southern end of Lake Samish and the point at which the lake curves away from the highway, WSDOT recorded six crashes in 2024. However, only one of those was reported to be caused by a distracted driver.
During the same period, there were an additional three crashes reported on the northbound side of I-5 just south of the lake and one just off the highway. None of those were caused by a distracted driver.
The southbound side of that stretch of I-5, from which the sloth isn’t visible, saw four crashes in 2024 and one in 2025.
According to WSDOT spokesperson RB McKeon, WSDOT hadn’t noticed more crashes than usual in the area around the sloth, but took it down as a proactive step after staff saw drivers slowing down to get a view of the sloth.
“As it gained attention, our crews reported seeing undesirable driver behavior, such as drivers slowing down through the area,” McKeon said in an email to the Bellingham Herald. “While we did not cite collision data as a reason for removal, we made a proactive decision to mitigate a distraction on state right-of-way.”
The sloth differs from something like a billboard, which is also designed to grab the attention of drivers, because it isn’t subject to state laws regulating how attention-grabbing it can be, McKeon said.
“While I appreciate that distraction may be subjective, there are rules and regulations that govern billboards… It is worth noting that many of the signs your readers have flagged as being distractions are signs on private property, which WSDOT does not have jurisdiction over, whereas the sloths are located on our right-of-way, where we do have jurisdiction and can take measures to reduce risk,” McKeon said.
McKeon added that the most distracting signs and billboards are usually on private property, so WSDOT has no jurisdiction over them. WSDOT does have jurisdiction over the land where the sloth stood.
- Other I-5 safety concerns
Additionally, WSDOT officials were concerned that the sloth could fall from its perch and onto the highway, especially during stretches of wind or rain.
“The initial sloth had been there for several months, had been exposed to inclement weather and WSDOT did not have any way of knowing how it was secured to the tree. We do not want objects like this to come down in the travel lanes.”
According to McKeon, WSDOT has the same concerns about the third sloth. But it’s in a location that’s much more difficult for crews to reach.
“When a third sloth appeared in a different location we assessed the situation. While we share similar concerns about its presence, removing it would require a full highway closure and specialized equipment, and with that we would incur significantly higher costs and safety concerns for our crews compared to previous removals,” McKeon said. “Given limited resources and competing safety priorities, we are continuing to monitor the situation but do not currently plan to take further action.”
