GRIZZLY OR BROWN BEAR?

This series of photos is intended to demonstrate just how variable the brown bear is in a single population - all of these bears were photographed last year in early August along the Katmai coast. A young adult brown bear is shown above (sex unknown). Photo by Scott W. Michael.

Ursus arctos is one of the most revered and feared beasts on earth. This mammal has been given numerous appellations, including grizzly, brown, coastal brown, Alaska brown and Kodiak bear. As a neophyte to bear classification, I found myself very confused by the common vernacular, as well as the scientific nomenclature applied to this bruin. How many species or subspecies are there and do these common names represent disparate populations?

Queenie, an elderly sow. Photo by Scott W. Michael.

It turns out that all of these common names refer to a single species - Ursus arctos. Typically, the term brown bear (as well as coastal and Alaskan brown bear) is applied to U. arctos populations that live in coastal Alaska, while Kodiak bear is used for “brownie” populations that live in the Kodiak Island archipelago (this includes the islands of Kodiak, Afognak, and Shuyak). Grizzly is usually reserved for U. arctos populations in the interior of Alaska, in Canada and the lower 48 states. While you can call them whatever common name you wish, they are all Ursus arctos.

An adult female known as Ms. Hook (she had two spring cubs at this time). Photo by Scott W. Michael.

OK - HOW MANY SUBSPECIES?

So they all fall under the single binomial Ursus arctos - but are brown and grizzly bears different enough to warrant distinct subspecies status? And how about the Kodiak bear – doesn’t it represent a different subspecies? (OK, I know many of you are starting to suffer from brain fog because of taxonomic overload, but I enjoy this stuff, so bear with me!)

Traditionally, subspecies have been defined as populations that differ slightly from one another, but that are not disparate enough to be elevated to the level of distinct species. In most cases, a subspecies represents a group of individuals that has been isolated from the main population long enough to exhibit some degree of change, but yet if they breed with members of the original population they will still produce viable offspring.


There has been much debate about how many subspecies of U. arctos actually exist in North America. In the early twentieth century (1918 to be exact) it was proposed that there were 86 subspecies of U. arctos in North America alone! This classification scheme was soon shot to pieces by the taxonomically-inclined, leading bruin biologists to recognize only two subspecies: the mainland populations, which were recognized as Ursus arctos horribilis, and the bear population of the Kodiak Island archipelago, which were referred to as U. a. middendorffi.

A young adult male. Photo by Scott W. Michael.

So, everything appeared to be as clear as mud until DNA analysis came on the scene. DNA has a biochemical signature that enables scientists to distinguish species and study their degree of relatedness. Recently, using mitochondrial DNA, researchers struck a body blow to the widely accepted North American-Ursus arctos classification scheme. These molecular surveys indicate that there is actually only one subspecies of brown bear in all of North America – this subspecies should be called Ursus arctos arctos (no more horribilis or middendorffi).

Adult boar named Mickey. Photo by Scott W. Michael.

In a nutshell, this means that the grizzly bear, Kodiak bear and brown bear are all the same beast. It is a wide-ranging subspecies that does not only roam throughout North America, it is also found over much of Eurasia as well. That’s right, U. arctos arctos is a circum-global species, having been reported from the Balkans, Caucasus, Carpathians, Pyrenees, Italy (Abruzzo and the Benta Mountains), the Baltic States, Scandinavia (excluding Denmark), Greece, Syria, Russia and the countries of the Tibetan plateau (China, Tibet and Nepal). That said, there are a number of other valid subspecies on the European and Asian continents. (A side note: another very odd conclusion the molecule purveyors came to is that certain populations of brown bears are more closely related to the polar bear [Ursus maritimus] then they are to other brown bears! Now my head hurts!)

A large boar (in his prime) dubbed Pythagoras. Photo by Scott W. Michael.

AMAZING VARIABILITY

While it may be that brown and grizzly bears are not distinct on the molecular level, some bear buffs still insist that the inland grizzly and coastal brown bears are different animals. There is no doubt, that some individuals from coastal regions do not look like their inland kin. A male coastal brown bear often has a more elongated neck, longer legs, and more protuberant face than its landlocked “cousin,” while inland boars are often more compact, with a shorter neck, shorter appendages and more concave face. But when it comes to physical appearances, there are no hard fast rules that can be consistently used to separate the coastal and inland populations.

A very large, older boar. Dripping saliva is visible resulting from jaw injury. Scott W. Michael.

This incredible variability in U. arctos populations is acutely demonstrated by the studies of Dr. Ian Sterling and Andrew DeRocher. These researchers examined a set of male U. arctos skulls from the Caucus Mountains, Russia. They noted that while some skulls looked like those of a “classic” brown bear, there was also a skull that resembled a panda (with short face and high profile) and another that looked more like a wolf cranium (i.e., it was more elongate and slender)!

Above, I mentioned that in 1918, a researcher described 86 different “species” of brown and grizzly bears in North America. Most of his research was based on the examination of skulls at the National Museum (sometimes only a single specimen of a particular “species”). Another researcher came-up with an even more elaborate classification scheme – he concluded that the skeletons of extinct and modern day brown bears he examined represented 232 distinct ursid species. In actual fact they all belonged to the highly variable U. arctos!

Although sporting some nicks and cuts, this boar is in his prime - this is Tank. Scott W. Michael.

You only have to look at the photos of the brown bears in this blog (I have included a number of shots above) to see that most grizzlies do not look exactly alike. In fact, individuals are often so unique in appearance that bear-viewers regularly name them and readily recognize them from one year to the next. Some individuals have big ears; in others the ears are relatively petite. The bodies of some are long and lanky, while those of others are short and squat. Some have a long, prominent snout; others have the “classic” grizzly “dish” (concave) face. Some of these characteristics also change from spring to fall (e.g., bears get girthy as they pile on weight for the winter) and as the bears age (e.g., subadult males tend to be more gracile and finely built than males in their prime). The color of the pelage is not a constant either -there are blond, brunette, black furred and, on rare occasions, even white brown bears! In conclusion, while there may be differences between some individuals in coastal and inland population, you cannot consistently distinguish between the different populations.

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael

MALEVOLENT MOTHERS AND BRUIN BABYSITTING: PART 2

The brown bear sow (Ms. Hook) that trusted us to babysit her two spring cubs for approximately 20 minutes. Photo by Scott W. Michael

In the last bear post (click here to read), we looked at how mother bears will utilize the presence of human groups to increase their level of security while nursing their young – a indicator of their ability to learn and their behavioral plasticity. Last year (2007) in Katmai, our group was able to witness an even more amazing phenomenon, related to sows and dependent cubs. This behavior has been dubbed as “cub-caching.” During this behavior, instead of moving close to human groups to nurse, the sow will approach a hominid cluster with her cubs, and then leave her offspring with the humans while she goes off to fish among the other bears. That’s right, they employ our species to babysit their youngsters! Quite a contrast to the mother bear described in my last posting that attacked the two hikers in Glacier National Park, eh (click here)? Once again, the root cause is the fact that some large boars have an aversion to us and at least some sows have learned to take advantage of it. By leaving their young cubs near a group of people, the sows can go fish without putting their offspring at risk of being attacked by other bears.

During my stay at Katmai National Park, our group experienced cub caching on three separate occasions. Our first experience with this behavior went something like this: mother bear (dubbed Ms. Hook) came sauntering along a tributary that snaked from the river mouth to the sea, with two small shapes trotting along some distance behind her. The two cubs were lagging behind, occasionally stopping to sniff the sand and to pick-up bits of debris (e.g., shells) in their mouths. When the sow was adjacent to our little clump of humanity (about 4 m away) she stopped and waited for her kinder to catch-up. When they did, she abruptly vocalized and the two cubs plopped down on the wet sand. I assume the vocalization was their cue that we were in charge for while. Mother bear then proceeded to head for the prime fishing area, 60 to 80 yards further along and into the estuary, and join the other bears that were already chasing and jumping on their illusive quarry. So there we were, 3 to 4 m from two winsome spring cubs that were not at all concerned about the gawking band of two-legged, one-eyed anthropoids (that one- eye was the lenses protruding from the camera that are faces were pressed up against)! The cubs simply sat on their haunches and watched their mother leave, they turned to check us out, one laid back in repose, they checked out debris in the sand – in short, they were ideal little charges!

The spring cubs occasionally look back to observe us, but for the most part seemed completely comfortable with being "cached" with Homo sapiens. All photos by Scott W. Michael.

After five minutes or so, they moved along in front of us (much to the delight of the photographers as they had originally parked themselves between us and the sun) and sat down side-by-side with their backs facing us. They remained there until a big pulse of salmon entered the estuary mouth and all hell broke loose with the adult bears chasing fish in various directions. The sudden commotion startled the little bears, which ran past us and took up a position behind our group. They remained there for a little while longer until mom came back to pick them up.

I could not believe what I had just witnessed - I had read about it, but to actually see it happen was mind altering! To have this powerful, often misunderstood mother, entrust us with her seven month old offspring while she went off to catch her supper! The photos above were all shot during our first baby-sitting (cub-caching) encounter. That 20 minute period was worth the cost of the entire trip and was no doubt my most memorable wildlife encounter!

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

MALEVOLENT MOTHERS AND BRUIN BABYSITTING: PART 1

When sows nurse their young, they are placed in somewhat of a precarious position, having to recline on their back with back legs splayed forth. It turns out, some females will utilize groups of humans as a refuge as they engage in nursing. Photo by Scott W. Michael

“Hushai said moreover, "You know your father and his men, that they are mighty men, and they are fierce in their minds, like a bear robbed of her cubs in the field…” 2 Samuel 17:8

"Better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs than a fool in his folly." Proverbs 17:12

"I will meet them like a bear that is bereaved of her cubs, and will tear the covering of their heart." Hosea 13:8

The writers of old were well aware that it was not a good idea to threaten the young of a mother brown bear. Contemporary authors have rang the same warnings bells. If you read any guide on recreating in bear country, one of the ironclad rubrics is to never approach a grizzly sow with offspring. As we discussed in an earlier posting, mother grizzly is a product of her environment, which in the past, was not a very safe place to raise a family. So she will sometimes respond aggressively to a perceived threat - which people are, at least over some portions of the grizzly’s range.

Consider the case of Ann Quarterman and Christine Bialkowski described in the book Mark of the Grizzly. While this book is considered “bjorn porn” (bjorn is Norwegian for bear*) by many ursidophiles, the Quarterman and Bialkowski attack clearly demonstrates just how protective a mother bear can be. The two women were hiking in Glacier National Park, when they spotted a sow with two cubs of the year in tow some 300 meters away. The female, upon spotting the two hikers, immediately began charging toward them. The two girls jumped up and down and yelled hoping that the bear would recognize them as human and forestall her attack, but the sow kept coming. They finally ducked behind a rise so that they were out of sight of the agitated mother bear. She pressed on until she located the hikers cowering behind the ridge and subsequently mauled them both before running off with her offspring. (One woman had bear spray and actually unloaded the whole canister on the bear, but it apparently had little effect on the sow’s desire to do harm to the perceived threat to her cubs.)

There is no doubt that a mother grizzly can morph into one of the most ferocious animals on the planet, if she feels that her cubs are in peril. But momma bears, at least in some areas, do not always look at humans as a threat. Consider the refuging behavior employed by sows with dependent cubs. This was first described in the population of Ursus arctos that frequent the McNeil River Sanctuary. At McNeil, there is a viewing pad, where all human observers are to remain when watching the bears. Biologists began to notice that mothers with cubs would approach near to the viewing pad when they wanted to nurse their young. During the nursing process, the mother bear lies on her back and her progeny climb onto her belly and suckle at one of her six nipples (they may move from one nipple to another until mom’s milk supply is temporary exhausted). During this time, mother and babies are more vulnerable to attack. If other bears are around, the sow will keep a close eye on the goings-on of her neighbors. If she feels threatened, she will quickly jump to her feet, sending the cubs tumbling to earth, and prepare to defend her offspring.

It turns out (as I mentioned in the last post) that in many areas where bear-viewing occurs, large males tend to be more wary of human groups. (It has been suggested that boar avoidance of people is a function of their being more likely to have had negative experiences with hunters, who usually target large males.) You can see this avoidance behavior at McNeil River, where many larger boars remain on the side of the river opposite the viewing pad. OK –so here is where it gets real interesting. Female bears have learned about these tendencies and as a result, in order to increase their security levels during these nursing bouts, some sows will sidle-up to our kind! Is that not awesome - that mother brown bears have learned to use bear-viewers to help take care of her cubs.

That female’s take advantage of ecotourists has been studied in British Colombia (Nevin and Gilbert 2005). These researchers found that female’s with dependent cubs catch more fish-per-unit-effort when ecotourists are present than when they are not. They concluded that this increase in foraging effectiveness was due to the fact fewer males are present when bear-viewers are around. (Other studies in this region have shown that large boars tend to fish more at night when humans vacate the fishing area, while more mothers with cubs fish during the day.)

We will examine an even more incredible phenomenon, cub caching, in my next post.

References:

Nevin, O. T. and B. K. Gilbert. 2005. Measuring the cost of risk avoidance in brown bears: Further evidence of positive impacts of ecotourism. Biol. Conserv. 123:453-460.

Paula, a very experienced and defensive sow, nurses her yearling cub, Racer. After nursing, Racer relaxes and enjoys the security of having a good mom. Video by Scott W. Michael.

* - I borrowed the saying “bjorn porn” from bear biologist Steve Stringham - we will discuss Steve and his amazing work in a future post!

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

SO HOW DANGEROUS IS THE GRIZZLY?

Surely the people in repose behind this large, scarred male grizzly should be running for their lives? Stop scratching your head buddy, you're about to get eaten by a grizzly! Or is he? Photo by Scott Michael.

In the last few bear posts I have described why the grizzly has had a harder time living side-by-side with Homo sapiens than its cousin U. americanus. We discussed how the grizzly evolved in a rough neighborhood and that by being bellicose, this bear ensured its survival. So, grizzlies are potentially more dangerous than black bears because of the behavioral baggage they have carried with them through the years - but really, how dangerous are grizzly bears to our species?

While the grizzly bear is potentially more dangerous than its kin, the actual likelihood that you will become the victim of this often misunderstood beast, even if you spend lots of time in grizzly country, is very slim. But how can that be? Many non-bear devotees (which included me at one time) believe your chances of surviving a wild grizzly encounter (that is, running into a grizzly on its turf) is almost nil and if you do live through the experience you will bear the emotional and physical scars for life. Much of this is due to the contemporary media. How many times have you seen a show on one of the many nature-oriented TV stations that concentrate on those rare bad encounters between bear and human. (Does Grizzly Man ring a bell?) The old adage “if it bleeds, it leads” certainly has been applied to exploit the grizzly.

This type of sensationalist reporting is not new. You only have to look at the stories of killer bears that permeated the literature of the late-19th and early 20th-centuries. But not all the naturalists and outdoorsman of the time were bellowing this same warning. Some went against the flow. For example, consider the writings of zoologist Dr. William T. Hornaday. In 1927, he wrote the following about the grizzly’s character.

“I have made many observations on the temper of the grizzly bear, and am convinced that naturally the disposition of this reportedly savage beast is rather peaceful and good-natured. At the same time, however, no animal is more prompt to resent an affront or injury, or punish and offender. The grizzly temper is defensive, not aggressive; and unless the animal is cornered, or thinks he is cornered, he always flees from man.”

Much of the grizzly’s bad reputation was inspired by the tales disseminated by Indian and European hunters. They found that the mighty bear was indeed ferocious when it had been hit with a slug, peppered with buckshot or pierced by an arrow. But can you blame the animal for defending its life against an aggressor? Such was also the case with Lewis and Clark’s expedition. The majority of their bad encounters with grizzlies were bears that had been maimed by their relatively light caliber weapons.

John M. Holzworth speaks to the truth and legend behind the grizzly’s ferocity. He was not a neophyte when it came to the behavior of the great bear. He had spent lots of time with brown bears between approximately 1915 and 1930. He reports having seen over 250 individual grizzlies in the wild (both in Alaska and the lower 48 states) and he photographed many of these at close range. He concluded the following about the grizzly’s undeserved reputation in his book The Wild Grizzlies of Alaska:

“The big bears… are fighting machines of the first order… Together with his character as a fighter was soon added his reputation for ferociousness and proneness to attack beast and man. But is his desire to fight in self-defense is not justifiable? It is a far different thing from going out to attack people who are not molesting him. The big bear’s criminal offense, apparently, is his effectiveness in defending himself.”

Thus, these pioneers of bear observation conclude that while grizzlies will fight more ferociously than any other animal if they or their offspring are in danger, they are more likely to avoid people than attack them. More on grizzly aggression in my next bear post!

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael

HUMAN SPRAWL AND THE GREAT BEAR

The black bear has had a far easier time dealing with human encroachment. Photo by Scott Michael.

One reason that grizzly numbers plummeted as Europeans subdued the North American continent is because this bear requires large tracts of wilderness in order to survive. Human development in grizzly habitat has continued to have a negative impact on the great bear. Much of grizzly country includes picturesque landscapes where people want to visit or settle. More campgrounds, hotels, hiking trails, restaurants, swimming pools, tennis courts, stores, golf courses, ski areas, housing developments, etc. are popping up within or at the periphery of prime bear habitat. More development, either residential or business, also means more roads – this equates to more bear-people encounters and more bears being struck by automobiles.

Many people that set-up residence in bear country are unwilling to put up with the potential danger or property destruction that are inherent in sharing the “wilderness” with these large carnivores. In fact, most premature bear deaths result from “defense of life and property” (a.k.a. DLP) kills and automobile collisions. Between 1992 and 2000, 74 grizzlies were killed by humans in the Great Yellowstone Ecosystem (Gunther et al. 2004). Forty-three percent were killed in DLP incidents, while 28 % were destroyed by park managers because of conflict between these grizzlies and humans (most of these “bad” bears were killing livestock, raiding orchards or bee hives). During this study, no humans were killed by grizzlies in the area, but 38 people were injured (most of these were hunters [54%], followed by hikers [31%]).

Black bears have better adapted to the encroachment of human habitation. Ursus americanus is a stealthy bruin that will spend the daytime hours in the woods, only foraging in people-infested areas when darkness falls. Unlike their grizzled kin, they do not require the large wilderness areas to survive. More on the differences between black bears and grizzlies in tomorrow's post...

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael

THE MALIGN MONARCH OF NORTH AMERICA

Ursus arctos along the Katmai coast. Photo by Scott Michael.

The grizzly has been a subject of lore and legend for centuries. When Lewis and Clark made their way across the North American continent, it was the grizzly that made the biggest impression on this band of explorers. Of course, the Native Americans had already developed a special relationship with the grizzly. They revered the great bear and some tribes attributed physical and mystical powers to the beast. For example, In the Koyukon tribe, women were not allowed to touch the meat or hide of the grizzly as its spirit was too powerful for a female to handle. European hunters, trappers and pioneers also encountered the grizzly as they dispersed and settled across the North American wilderness. It wasn’t long before man and bear were butting heads.

California is one of many sad examples demonstrating the outcome of this conflict between man and U. arctos. It is hard to imagine that California was once a haven for the grizzly bear. There are accounts from as early as the 1500’s to as late as the 1900’s that tell of “troupes” or “regiments” of grizzly bears feeding on whale carcasses that were cast-up on California beaches. When Scotsman John Muir explored Yosemite National Park, there were both black and grizzly bears. In his writings he shares many of his observations on Yosemite’s U. arctos. He described his first encounter with a grizzly (which he refers to as the Sierra bear) as follows:

“In my first interview with the Sierra bear we were frightened and embarrassed, both of us, but the bear was better than mine. When I discovered him, he was standing in a narrow strip of meadow, and I was concealed behind a tree on the side of it. After studying his appearance as he stood at rest, I rushed toward him to frighten him, that I might study his gait in running. But, contrary to all I had heard about the shyness of the bears he did not run at all; and when I stopped short within a few steps from him, as he held his ground in a fighting attitude, my mistake was monstrously plain. I was then put on my good behavior, and never afterward forgot the right manners of the wilderness." Our National Parks (1901)

The last grizzly bear was reportedly killed in California in 1922 – it was shot by a rancher. Isn’t it ironic that the prominent symbol on the State flag of California no longer lives there because of the man-grizzly rivalry?

So why was the grizzly eradicated from the California landscape, as well as over most of their North American range, while the black bear was not? Black bears have done much better, not only in California, but all across North America. There are currently an estimated 800,000 black bears in the lower 48 and only about 1,000 grizzlies (no one really knows for sure how many of either species live on this continent, but these are the expert’s best guesses). In the 1900’s it has been estimated that there were over 100,000 U. arctos in North America. (We will look at why the black bear has been able to co-exist with Homo sapiens in more detail in a future post.)

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael

VIEWING BEARS AT KATMAI NATIONAL PARK

In 2006, Janine and I made our first journey to Katmai National Park. If you watched the documentary "Grizzly Man" you no doubt recognize Katmai - it was the Alaskan location were Timothy Treadwell went for 13 seasons in a row to observe grizzly (brown) bears. Of course, during his final stay at Kaflia Bay (i.e., "The Grizzly Maze"), he and his companion, Amie Huguenard, were killed by one of the bears. This was in 2003.

Katmai is truly a bear paradise! Not only are there more grizzly bears per square mile than about any place on earth, the bruins there are also quite sociable. To give you some idea how amazing our trip was, and how approachable the bears are, I have uploaded a video documenting our 2006 adventure. (Check out www.katmaibears.com to learn more about these trips.) Enjoy!