[Gimpilator]

Yeah, how about that! He smokes on every peak and still I can barely keep up with him.

[texasbb]

I'm certainly no expert, but I'd bet money on two things: (1) your bear is a black bear, and (2) the Sebille bear is your bear. Even the shape of the Sebille bear's face matches your bear's. The only thing that gives me pause is the reported color of the Sebille bear, but light, shadow, and silhouette can play tricks on us.

[mike]

[Backcountry]

Why not compare the photos in black and white to remove the subjectiveness of color and rely more on the morphology?

[Flower Sniffer]

I would like to think that they are the same bear, but if you look at the third comparison picture, you get a pretty good side view of each, and the head to body ratio on the suspected grizzly pic is very different from that of your bear. Your bear's head is much smaller compared to the body. At least it looks that way to me. I do think that hump on the black bear is kind of weird. I've seen a lot of black bears, but don't recall a pronounced hump like that. I wonder if it's just got funny anatomy? Other than the hump, I'd say it's very black bear looking.

[Hulksmash]

May be there was a lonely Griz that got busy with a black bear.

[Bernardo]

The mystery of the misplaced grizzly has been resolved. Now imagine that this bear had a brown coat and we can probably explain a lot of other grizzly sightings.

[Slide Alder Slayer]

Through my observations the two sets of pictures represent a brown bear and a black bear. Having said that I don't see how any definitive mystery solved conclusion can be made based on the poor quality of the alleged brown bear photos.

[silence]

it looks like a black bear to me ... but as they say a fairly robust one at that!

[beaudaddy]

I like my Bears like I enjoy my coffee... Black and Robust...

[ChuckM]

Thanks to all of you who took the time to reply. I remember thinking it was a black bear at the time I was taking the pictures but it was the experts that raised the question based on the size of the hump. They were very interested in the size of the front claws. My main point was the morphology of the two bears were so similar that the bear in my pictures could have easily made the silhouette forms of the Sebille bear. texasbb - you are right on ... to be fair to Joe I might agree a strongly back lit black bear may cause a reddish-brown halo through the fur. I have never seen where any back lit or even shaded object reflects true color. The experts basically took his word for it because it is not in the proof. Mike - I agree. There really isn't a chance they'll backtrack on their decision even though I think their case is pretty weak. I think I was actually ignored by them hoping I'd just give up and go away. Backcountry - Good thought but both the bear photos are already basically black and they have agreed the morphology is very similar. I was hoping this very feature would have given the experts enough doubt they would reconsider the credibility of their original claim. Flower Sniffer - Great observations! When I was trying to put together these comparison shots I realized I couldn't really get the exact same postures but I did try to get as close as possible. In your observation in #3 the Sebille photo looks like the bear is more perpendicular to the camera with the head held up and out stretched. The comparison in my photo the head and neck are bending back towards me a little. I agree the hump does look a little weird as in picture #3 which I attributed to the bear being in hyperphagia and probably very close to finding it's den. Hulksmash - I did bring this subject up with my WSFW contact saying I have heard of brown bears and polar bears interbreeding. He had never heard of the brown bear crossing with a black bear but you never know ... I did receive another email from my WDFW contact asking permission to use my photos in their bear identification and educational material. I did give that permission and told him I was honored by the request. Meanwhile, just to myself, I thought he just validated my point. Funny that! Thank you all again for your comments and keep them coming. Do you think the black bear in my pictures could be the same bear in the Sebille silhouette photos knowing they were taken two days apart in the same location?

[GrnXnham]

This is really an interesting thread! You did a really good job of lining up your pics with the other pics in order to compare the bear with similar shots. You make a strong argument for the "grizzly" actually being your black bear. I doubt the "experts" will change their decision on the bear species. We all have an ego, you know? It would take a BIG person to now say that they could have been wrong. As far as interbreeding with different species, I had heard that while a grizzly/brown bear could breed with a polar bear, they can't breed with a black bear. The reason is because polar bears are very closely related to brown/grizzles (brown and grizzles are the same species.) Polar bears were brown bears that wandered north and adapted and evolved into polar bears. Black bears and grizzlies evolved separately so no interbreeding is possible. Perhaps a bear "expert" can confirm or deny this?

[Ringangleclaw]

[gb]

I think hulksmash has it right. The bear is black, but the ears round, the eyes look recessed as with a grizzly and the hump is very obvious. I'd bet this is a mixed breed bear. The claws or prints would further the argument.

[Flower Sniffer]

The general consensus seems to be that grizzly and black bears can't breed. Apparently they parted ways genetically too far back, so they are not compatable. The grizzly and polar bear parted ways in more recent history, so they are able to breed, but it is rare. Here's a website on the subject. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/polar-bears_2.html