That video is absolutely wonderful!!

That really is the sort of, "That's the shot!" moment.

(Uhm, and publicly now, when were we going to go to Alaska?)

I've heard late August to mid September is a good time...

So when do we get tickets? :p

You guys...please bring bear spray and no guns. Counter Assault preferably! Have a great time.

Thanks Sabrina! Did you happen to hear our debate on bringing guns into the backcountry on our Grizzly Bear podcast, The Grizzly Truth? It was quite amusing.

Hi Lauren,
I listened to your pod cast and agree with most of your statements. However, being a very strong advocate for Tim I would just like to point out a few discrepancies about the "myth and facts" about Tim.
1. Very few biologists and scientists agree with Tim's methods. There are some, those who are a little more in tune with human psychology and conditions.
2. The Alaskan bears you are talking about when it comes to Tim are actually brown bears, though many authors refer to them as Grizzlies, either for the heroic reasons or simply because there is perhaps only ONE difference between the two. Food source. Browns get their food from the abundant Salmon streams. Since food is so abundant they tend to be less aggressive. Grizzlies (interior bears), like our own in the lower 48, get theirs from berries and roots, winter kill ungulates and other sources less available. To me, this discrepancy is trivial, unless all biologists and scientists can refer to them in this way. Which they do not.
3. Bells are not a good deterrent as bears can rarely hear these in enough time to make much of a difference.
4. Since Grizzlies can run incredibly fast it is not advisable to count on any tree unless it is within a very close distance. If a Grizzly is a mere 100 feet away, you have six seconds to climb that tree high enough and hope that the bear doesn't climb after you.
5. Although Tim displayed some questionable behavior; here are some interesting questions to ask:
Biologists do research for months at a time, disturbing bears natural behavior, capturing (sometimes with death), drugging, tagging, tattooing, collaring and then giving them an antidote, which, in some cases causes mortality also. Why is this type of research less intrusive than Tim's?
Bear 141 was a research bear of Sterling Millers. This bear was captured several times over a short period. These meetings with humans were the only type this bear had experienced. Of all the bears within Tim's perimeter of "research" why did this bear attack? When I asked Sterling or any other "right wing" biologist about this they shrug it off as completely unimportant, however, had it been one of their own, you can be sure they would have looked into this cause a bit further. It would have been more realistic for them.
There are many more facts or possibilities that others CHOOSE not to commit to when it comes to Tim's death, as this would take away from furthering their agenda of saying, "I told you so." Instead of arrogantly taking this position on what they knew would be an eventuality, they should have been much more aggressive in helping him, took him more seriously and patronized him much less. Whatever "viagra" effect that occurred after his death by patting themselves on the back is simply unforgivable and irresponsible. I guess they taught us huh? Now anyone who even accidentally comes close to bear and has a run in, is labeled someone who was "doing a Treadwell." Unless, of course, it happens to one of their own peers. Convenient.
There are many people who are actively involved in helping the Grizzly because of Tim. Regardless of Tim and his methods there will always be those few people who are more fascinated with wildlife than they should be. Unless they pull nearly every nursery book off the shelves, cartoon or "feel good" animal movie out of public hands, not to mention all of NG shows, AP shows and Nature shows off the air, there will always be some sense of anthropomorphism looming. Common sense and a few lessons on bear safety should see that the public can coexist with these creatures as we continue to develope and settle into their habitat. OOps! I went off...anyway
Is it always necessary to point the finger at Tim? No, it's just easier that way, and he is dead, so who cares. Right?
WRONG!
Great site! I really enjoyed it and think you are doing well for the bears. Thank you.
You don't have to post this...I just wanted to write to you about some opinions;)
Whew. I feel a bit better for it now.

Sabrina, I thought your comments were great, of course I'm going to post them.

Despite any criticism Tim might deserve, it appears he has done quite a lot of good for the grizzly cause. And if he encourages even one child to grow up and become a Bearologist or even a dot-com millionaire who buys ANWR and makes it a reserve, then maybe its enough. But the cost was high, both to Tim and the bears.

I am also interested more in this Grizzly vs brown bear thing. I did quite a bit of research on the bears because of this and my understanding was:

Brown bears were the species (Ursus arctos), but the subspecies were the Kodiak and Grizzlies and some other ones, including our extinct state bear, the California Grizzly (Ursus californicus). This kept them seperate from the typical Yosemite garbage-eating bears, the black bears.

(1) Kodiaks are easy, they're all basically on Kodiak Islands. They're the biggest and their subspecies of "brown bear" called Ursus arctos middendorffi. These guys have a specialized diet for the coastal areas and are more like grazers. They've been completely seperated from the other bears of the world for thousands of years and scientists have decided they are genetically and behaviorally distinct and deserve their own name.

(2) Grizzlies are another subspecies of brown bear called Ursus arctos horribilis (what a name). This is the big scavenger bear on the mainland and also the name of the subspecies in the midwest US (including the Yellowstone bears).

The confusion happens when we hear things like:

"Alaskan Brown Bears" are bigger (I assumed they were the same subspecies horribilis but their food source was larger). They were not genetically different from the grizzlies in Yellowstone, though. I chalked this up to local population differences, much like the great white sharks in Southern Africa are smaller than the one in California because ours eat giant elephant seals and the African ones eat cute little Cape fur seals. Yet genetic differences have not yet caused scientists to reclassify them as sufficiently different species.

Your thoughts?

Lauren,

Unreal! I can't help but laugh, and no, not at you, just at the sheer confusion of it all. You can go onto countless web sites, read tons of books and watch enough "educational" videos on the Brown Bear and come out with your head spinning and your eyes crossed! The only thing I think everyone agrees with is the sub species of, the Grizzly and the Kodiak. Supposedly the Kodiak has never had the chance to interbreed with their smaller cousins (?) the Grizzly. I don't know how the bears know where the demarcation line is but hey?! Afognak Island also has Kodiak bears. Though it is fairly close it is still it's own separate Island. I think a small waterway separates it from the main Kodiak Island. But get this...Kaflia and Kukak Bay along with Hallo Bay are right across from Kodiak Island, separated by the Shelikof Strait (huge) right? These bears are also coastal bears, they share the same varieties of food sources and have the same prospects for fish as their brethren across the strait and yet they are called Brown Bears. Now what the heck?! Okay so we have that little snafu there.

Another thing I found was that a lot of the photos Tim took were of bears with silvery tipped fur, a trait found in Grizzlies. Yet he is continually beaten over the head about this, both while here and in death. I only point these things out because I am so incredibly sick of people adding to his already tarnished legacy with things that scientists can't even get straight. According and avidly so, to them, they were Brown Bears and Tim is a fake and a fraud. Give me a break! But wait! There's more. Some bears he came in contact with were over 1200 pounds and stood 10 feet tall. According to Jonkel that's the size of a Kodiak which can weigh up to a ton?! Also the size of Grizzly. Which is it? Both? :::eyes crossin' here:::

I think Grizzlies are opportunists and not so much scavengers. I think the only time Grizzly are scavengers is when some twit tosses them donuts from the side of the road for a pose and his friend twit II is camping up on a mountain with his food sprawled out in carpet like fashion. Twit throws his donut box out with the rest of his road trip meals next to the garbage can, missing the bear proof hole by 6 feet out of sheer laziness and ignorance. Twit II decides that his tasty bacon grease is too much of a onus to take out with him (boy ya kinda wish he would, he'd smell great on the way back), so, he throws it on top of the fire, cause anyone brave enough to cook bacon out in the woods would do that. Maybe not, but in this story he did. Scavenger and most probably a future "management" bear. Thanks twits!

Some of my ranting's were facetious out of anger. Not towards you, read first sentence. I know there is a method to all of this, however, I think someone ought to do a better job at clarifying. The scientists should at least agree. I mean if your average person who wanted to learn about bears were to sit down and draw up pies and charts on the bear, yes, eventually it could be deciphered. Those of us who love to do things like that so that we can educate the public cannot possibly fathom that the average person would even want to delve into it with that much enthusiasm. Confusion would set in, followed by boredom and then finally indifference, wiping out any chance we have to get through to the public on these animals. These things are important. They have made important, now make it mentally available.

Tim could have had a HUGE impact on the public if he had been implemented correctly. The general public doesn't listen to scientists and biologists unless they are thrown into a situation of entertainment. That is very rare. So, if you are going to have people with charisma and genuine enthusiasm such as Tim, with the constitution to pull off some entertaining educational experiences for the public, it would be in their best interest to take heed next time and make sure things like this don't happen. The more they mocked Tim the less responsive he was, believe me, a lot of bear people are like that. Otherwise, I suggest the scientists and biologists minor in acting and public speaking. A lot of them sit in their little holes and type out monograph after monograph that the public can't understand and doesn't want to. I personally love them. Average Joe would rather drink beer, watch tv and blindly visit out national parks with no understanding to what their behavior reflects upon our bears. OR even worse, they don't appreciate them and think them disposable.

Anyway, I am droning on. I can drone...

One more thing. I think Alaska's Brown Bears and of course the Kodiak are bigger than Alaska's Grizzlies or our own, simply because of the protein and fat they have available. LOL! Which brings me to this...{{{sigh, I can't help myself}}} They bitch about Tim calling Brown Bears, Grizzlies in his book and in his films, saying he was trying to make himself look brave. Yet Grizzlies are the slightest of the bears, so it's based on the word "Grizzly" only. Go figure!

Your court?

Oh BTW, in my first reply I said 100 feet, I meant 100 yards in 6 seconds. Imagine how fast you would have to climb that tree in 100 feet! Forget it! 2?

Examining how animals are classified can be very interesting because the tug of war that often results is not just a matter of bickering scientists and their egos.

First, let's start with the scientific means of classification. Understandably, newer fields like genetics have had profound effects on the original classifications of species, drawing new connections between species, as well as breaking links we once thought were accurate.

I was just writing about this last month...

Still, taxonomy is slippery stuff, scientists do not always agree on how to classify organisms. The original methods involved only what could be observed. Then came DNA and other more intimate methods of determining how species have evolved.

More at: Naturally Speaking: Ancient Amphibians

But what is really disturbing is that the classification of species, is not only manipulated by scientists, but by other, more insidiious means, which are very often political, fueld by economics.

As Sabrina said before, if someone sat down with a complete set of bear data, they could probably sort out all the different subspecies once and for all. That's not to say it would be trivial, because there seems to be quite differing opinions within the scientific community on what constitutes enough of a difference to merit a seperate classification. That said, it COULD be done.

Some of the worst problems arise when people try to use classification of species for non-scientific purposes, but even here it is a double edged sword. Back in 2005, when the bear-benefactors of the Midwest tried to get the lower-48 grizzly reclassified as its own subspecies for protection's sake, political pressures from the farmers, etc. helped block this. On the other hand, the special community of orcas in the Puget Sound got listed.

Sabrina,

You mentioned the bears not knowing their own demarcation lines. Have you seen this post by Laurie about the polar bear breeding with a Grizzly? It's called Bear Breed Blending...

And Laurie... the "giant elephant seals" are also cute, just like their distant African Cape fur seal cousins. :p

Shane,
I sure did! That bear was so cool they went out and shot it. Aren't humans grand?

The shoot first, ask questions later strategy is pretty typical. Typically stupid, but typical.

When are guys planning on going out to Alaska? Are you going out to Katmai?

We were starting to talk about August or early September, but then our friends told us they were getting married then (on the other side of the world) so now we're up in the air again!

Do you have any favorite places?

Also, somehow my comment to your comment before got put before Shane's, so its above.