Alaska Photo Adventures
Travel & Wildlife Newsletter
Fall 2024
From 40+ years of living and photographing in Alaska, our wildlife photography newsletters have given thousands of photographers and travelers useful tips and insights to get great images and enjoy safe, exciting travel in Alaska!
APA photo tours work with a handful of top-of-the-line lodges, boat and flight operators at PRIME bear and wildlife destinations to give you the BEST photo opps and wildlife encounters in Alaska. We get bulk discounts and you get MORE time at MORE PRIME places than any other tour — at GREAT prices.
We Go Beyond.
NOTE: If you’re a previous tour participant and haven’t left us a review yet, or if you’re considering us and want to read our great reviews on Google, please click here.
Forward this newsletter to anyone who might benefit from the info here or is considering an Alaska photo tour!
· What’s more dangerous — black or brown/grizzly bears?
Some surprising facts about bears in Alaska and the world!
· Why all bear and wildlife flightseeing tours are NOT the same!
The blunt facts about why it’s next to impossible for an outsider to pick the best flight tours. Valuable points to keep in mind.
· Two wrongs don’t make a right. But 1000 do.
It takes a lot of fuzzy, dark disappointments to clarify your vision. Don’t think you’re the only one.
· Hidden Wildlife Violations
Are you guilty?
____________________________________________________________________
Note: We do NOT receive remuneration or kickbacks for any links to people or companies mentioned in our newsletter.
This information is to help all travelers and photographers enjoy Alaska travel, wildlife and photography.
A rising tide lifts all boats.
__________________________________________________________________
“My son’s room is constantly a mess. One day he found a skunk in his bed. The smell was so bad the skunk left.“
The simple assumption is that black bears are more dangerous for 2 main reasons: 1) there are far more black bear encounters with people in more places around the country and world, and 2) people tend to feed them or leave trash around in more places that black bears live and frequent, so encounters tend to increase to the point of black bears losing their fear of humans.
Now that just refers to encounters but doesn’t consider how many result in injury or death. The answer again is a very small percentage of encounters end up hurting or killing people.
The same is true of brown /grizzly bears. Since there are more encounters with black bears, the potential is greater for injury or death. Aside from what movies and sensationalized books tell us about brown and grizzly bears, when you discount the attacks based on surprising them in heavily vegetated land or with cubs (as with black bears), there are a miniscule number of attacks per year: BBC Wildlife reported recently that since 1784, there have been a total of 82 recorded accounts of brown bear attacks worldwide.
Compare that to black bears: 66 black bear attacks since 1784 from over 46,000 black bear interactions per year (same source). Those are pretty sparse figures. On the surface, based on these figures, it would seem that brown bears are more dangerous. But again, the difference of 16 attacks over 250 years is negligible.
So it also might be important to consider two other facts, 1) the number of black or brown bear encounters per year worldwide (it’s in the thousands just in Alaska alone) and 2) other animals that injure or kill humans:
— The two animals that kill people more than all bears combined in the US: horses (kicking) and cows (trampling).
— The one species that kills more people yearly in the US than any other animal (bears included): deer. 440 human fatalities /year
— The one animal that kills more people yearly worldwide than any other: The Anopheles gambiae mosquito (malaria) in sub-Sahara Africa.
Now I understand that statistics can be debated ad nauseam, and when you’re in bear country like Alaska, then you’re chance of any encounter is slightly greater. But again, your chance of a negative encounter is still incredibly remote, especially if you’re going with an experienced guide in popular areas like Brooks Falls and Lake Clark Nat’l Parks.
For the purposes of this article, the more interesting questions are: Do we contribute to the likelihood of an attack? Are we ignorant of things we do in the field, or attitudes we bring with us that unconsciously bias our chances of a good or bad interaction?
In a broader context, “Species” is a human separation or designation. It is a valid scientific layer that makes it easier for us to study and classify animals. But despite physical and morphological differences between animal “species”, there are obviously broader commonalities as well.
Despite race discrimination, all people have universal desires, fears, goals, and emotions. This not only falls under the loose umbrella of “humanity”, it clearly applies to animals as well. It is not anthropomorphic, as numerous well known biologists and and respected professionals have identified these commonalities. All animals have physical fears, the need to satisfy hunger and thirst, procreate, defend their territories, etc., and most have some sort of social need, whether in large or small groups.
Take for instance the need or desire to trust something nearby. It is a universal desire (fear?) to make sure something stagnant or alive will not hurt you. Once safety or trust is established, almost all animals will relax and often allow a closer experience. This crosses all species barriers, though admittedly most of us wouldn’t want to test where that barrier is with known aggressive species. (This doesn’t deny that they too would allow closer integration if they felt no threat.).
Are “dangerous” predators more like us than we think, or are we more like predators than we think, even though we can survive as vegetarians?
So that brings up other interesting questions:
Could our attitudes towards certain animals (e.g. “dangerous”predators) throughout history have been unjustifiably biased from limited information, anecdotal attack stories, profit motives (movies, book sales, etc) or ignorance?
Has the size, color or general “category” (predator, toothed or not, bird/mammal, etc.) influenced us well before we encounter the specific animal?
Is this a form of “animal racism” that may blind us to the particular animal we are encountering?
In my experience, the answer is yes to all. Take for example, brown/grizzly bears vs black bears. Though the size and color of an animal are clearly important in our interpretation of danger, statistics show that brown/grizzly bears are not any more dangerous than black bears. Yet just like unjustified fears or hatreds continue to unfairly based on skin color, most people fear an encounter with a grizzly bear more than a black bear. (Interestingly, the same is true of polar bears vs black — yet there have been very very few recorded attacks of polar bears on humans in the last 200+ years).
In over 40+ years of living in Alaska, working in wilderness situations, guiding tours to bear hotspots, etc., and encountering wild brown and black bears at extremely close ranges (e.g. a few feet), I have never had a brown or black bear act aggressive in any way. Perhaps I’ve been lucky not to surprise one with cubs at too close a range. But the point is not to assume that because of color, for example, a brown bear is more dangerous than a black or white.
I have also noticed that over many decades of having close encounters with hundreds of predators and other large animals that could ruin my life – sharks, snakes (including sea snakes), sting rays, lions, jaguars, wild elephants (in tall grass where neither of us could see each other) – they all want to leave us alone and continue their day.
Human skin color seems to be completely irrelevant to other animals (except perhaps insects…). That’s just a personal observation, not confirmed by any tests I know of. But from decades of field observation and interactions, what does seem to be relevant and important to a wild animal’s assessment of our threat level, are the following:
Our speed of walking, moving arms, body movements in general;
Direct/indirect body angle and eye contact;
Sounds — tone of voice, volume, outbursts of laughter, etc.;
Group size — 3-4+ people appear as a larger “animal” than 1 person, which could be a threat or deterrence to engage;
Smell — lack of it or any enticing food, sweet smelling lotions, body odors, etc.
Sudden change of any or all of these factors once the animal has seen us and made its first impression.
The simple conclusion is to recognize your possible biases and put them on hold. Animals are individuals, like humans, judging you by your actions. By connecting the dots above, and being aware of them around all animals, your “zone of trust” will broaden with the animals you encounter. Your incredibly low chance of a negative encounter will drop to minuscule.
And the biggest bonus: your experiences in general will likely become noticeably “closer” with all species, including humans.
On the surface, it seems pretty simple: call up a few brown bear flightseeing day tours, get a few prices, pick one that fits your budget and schedule, and reserve a cool half-day flight to photograph brown bears in Alaska.
But the waters are murky. It’s not that flight operators are shady or unsafe, but it is hard to know as a temporary visitor whether every operator maintains their aircraft in tip top shape. But as far as physical appearances go, the vast majority are good pilots with planes maintained legally and safe by FAA standards.
The important things are the not-so-obvious factors that the casual traveler to Alaska won’t know to ask about. The first is that this is a big state. Flight times eat up valuable time. Consider that if you book a 4-5 hour day tour to a popular bear spot, about half your time will be in the plane. You may have 2-4 hours on the ground, if lucky, depending on many factors.
Factor #1: Consider actual face time with the bear(s). This is admittedly hard for any operator to promise with certainty. But you can tip the odds in your favor by considering the right factors below. The first is exactly where they are flying to. Some of the closer areas have more bears on a typical day than others, due to time of season or habitat. They might be a bit of a walk away on the beach or in the sedge grasses inland a bit. Depending on where they are, this might eat up another half hour to an hour or more walking each way to get close to them each way.
Factor #2: There might typically only be 1 or 2 bears in the particular area, spread far apart. They might be sleeping as well, in between feeding or tides when the fish or clams might be in. Try to determine what the previous activity has been like on flight tours earlier in the day or the day before. See how they answer the questions and whether they have flexibility to stay longer or move to other areas if bears aren’t around.
Factor #3: Weather. Often flights are delayed or cancelled due not so much to rain but low cloud ceilings or wind. In the event your flight does take off, your short time with bears might be limited by safety considerations, taking off earlier or later than planned, and giving you less time than you thought you would have.
One area might be completely fogged in, which may necessitate flying to an alternate spot. This may be good or bad, as it might involve longer flight times (shorter face time) and/or worse weather or light for photos.
Factor #4: Tides. Since almost all of the bear hotspots are near beaches for salmon, clams and sedge grasses, flights have to be scheduled around low tide to land. Depending on what time low tide is — ideally between morning and early afternoon — your actual face time, again, might be clipped by anywhere from 1-3 hours for safety reasons.
Factor #5: Don’t assume you’ll be alone. The cheaper flights out of Anchorage don’t go as far south, as it takes a lot more time, and avgas is expensive for one. So there are a handful of “go-to” bear spots that will likely 1) be crowded with visitors, including fishermen 2) have fewer bears, 3) not be as open in terms of vegetation, seeing bears playing or relaxing, having more face-time, and 4) be harder to get isolated bear shots without boats, and other people in the shot. Wolverine Creek is one such spot that is relatively close to Anchorage.
Factor #6: Some areas are better when the salmon are in, which would limit them to being a better choice at those times of the summer. They are usually located near a productive salmon stream, which again would be subject to tidal flow and time of year. Red salmon run earlier in the summer than silver salmon. Chum salmon are not as plentiful and run sporadically through the summer, so not usually a good indicator of good bear activity. Basing your bear day trip on salmon runs, other than at Brooks Falls and a few other spots farther south and more expensive, takes more time, planning and money than the typical $800-1500 day costs.
So these are just a few considerations to discuss with your potential flight operators to get a clearer idea of your potential experience. You would have to decide whether it is worth your $1000-2000 for a possible 1-2 hours of actual photo time instead of assuming ~ 3-5+ hours that most day flights appear to offer.
At APA. we spend 2-3 days in bear country at our lodge providers in Lake Clark and Katmai Nat’l Park, so your bear experiences are not only longer than any possible day tour, but less weather dependent. Lodges are already across the inlet from the popular cities (Anchorage, Kenai, Homer, etc.) and thus avoid the hindrance of low cloud cover over the passes to get to Lake Clark or Katmai Nat’l Parks.and at the beaches.
As an added bonus, we go to less crowded bear areas with more bears than the short-hop beaches advertised for the day flights. Your experiences include bears with salmon (unlike the beach flights) and are incredibly closeup, less hurried and less regulated than the beach flights from Anchorage, Kenai and Homer. Plus if one spot is weathered out, since we’re already through the mountain pass at the bear lodge , we have way more options every day than the flights originating from the cities.
Northern Lights (Aurora borealis) illluminate the sky as Iditarod musher Stephen Schnuelle and dog team traverse the Kuskokwim River near McGrath, Alaska.We are told that you can’t justify one wrong action with another one. But we’re also told that you can’t get better at anything if you don’t make mistakes, and learn from them.
There has to be some feedback loop, some satisfaction along the way, that drives us towards capturing as close and beautifully as possible, what inspired us to shoot in the first place.
We are creatures of habit, and sometimes it is difficult to change old habits. Theoretically, If something isn’t working, or isn’t right –physically, emotionally, morally — it needs to change to get a better outcome. Even when we stumble along the way and have to re-evaluate our actions, there always seems to be animal or human inspirations to re-energeize and remind us of the gobsmacking beauty that we are immersed in.
Photography, like all art forms and pursuits, is not only a challenge, it’s a journey in two worlds — the outer one that we shoot in, and the inner one that drives us to record better and better mages. It involves the quest for inspiration and the recording of that inspiration in some way close to what we experienced.
To those who become more serious serious about the craft, it compels us to endure increasing physical and emotional discomforts and challenges to reach or goal(s) and get that perfect shot. Every photo involves this interplay of inspiration and the desire to capture this spark as close as possible. propelling us forward.
Therein lies the insight. Each small stumble — mistake – is a wrong step that gives you feedback to correct. We correct with the next step, with slight, sometimes unconscious, adjustments. We move from image to image, making course corrections along the way, as we improve our ability to catch the moment, expose correctly, isolate the subject, etc.
So photography is a journey of a thousand mis-steps. The feedback loop is so much easier and faster now with digital, mirrorless innovation. We can take a thousand photos in literally seconds and, over the course of minutes, hours or weeks, correct our “wrongs”, until we are satisfied.
Having mastered one level, we move on to the next. Novel subjects, more remote destinations, wider vistas, deeper connections. We not only have to overcome physical barriers, but the universal fear of making mistakes. Of showing our imperfect images to others, and the risk getting feedback, insights, course corrections. But your patience will pay off.
Suddenly you find yourself deleting fewer shots, capturing more great moments in focus, exposed beautifully or, surprisingly, showing relationships you may not have been consciously aware of. You’re moving closer to that elusive perfection in the back of your mind – that translation of the joy you felt when you snapped the shutter. Perhaps it was the pleasure of the trust and acceptance you felt in the company of animals or people who allowed you into their circle. And the pleasure of trust you are building within yourself to inspire others with your images.
This is when the joy really sinks deeper into your bones, to relive again and again. A re-validation of your ability to reproduce the immense, overwhelming, gobsmacking beauty and energy of life, amidst all the challenges and detours along the way.
And your lucky time and place to be in the middle of it.
Go forth and seek out more life-affirming experiences. It’s contagious, Bring others into your circle. Let the energy multiply when you’re not around.
What a gift.
There’s a lot of things wrong in the world, but this makes it right.
We see people violating the space of animals all the time, unaware that they are contributing or ruining their chances at closer interactions with the animals they want to get close to. This reduces opportunities for fantastic, one-of-a-kind wildlife photographs.
Most wildlife “violations” are not legal but moral in nature. (pun intended). Whether through genetic instincts or learned behavior, wild animals – predators and prey – are not that different from humans in how they perceive and interpret our movements and sounds.
Frans de Waal, one of the most well respected primatologists in the world, in his book “Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?” (2017) discusses the responsibility humans have in being around animals, and the burden we have in identifying our own limitations and perhaps prejudices first. Darwin discussed similar emotions in men and animals hundreds of years ago.
The sum of our actions, sounds and nonverbals are underestimated or unknown to most visitors in wild places. It’s not just how you “sneak” up on an animal, but how you appear from a distance, before you can see them clearly. They are usually aware of you long before you see them. The secret is to learn and watch very carefully what the animals are telling you about your actions.
After being amidst predators of all kinds, not only in Alaska but above and below water in ~50 countries, I have observed that with very few exceptions, (e.g. snakes, reptiles and insects), predators and harmful animals give us plenty of signals before they either leave or attack. They observe and react similarly to the way we position ourselves, the speed and timing of our movements, the sounds we make, and of course, eye contact.
Be aware of field conditions and interactions that contribute to an agitated animal. Is the terrain easy for them to see you? Which direction is your body facing (not just your head)? Does your body appear “closed” or “open”? A hunched or closed body can transmit fear, defense, threat or the wrong intentions to another animal. An open body and face can transmit trust, confidence and comfort. Steady movements help an animal judge your intentions and speed, whereas steady, fast, jerky or aggressive movements generally give agitated, unpredictable impressions.
The volume, pitch and speed of our voices, movements, and actions also affects animals. Soothing low voices are generally better than loud, fast talking or yelling (it happens all the time as energy levels get higher). Slow movements with arms close to our bodies projects a more peaceful, predictable behavior than waving arms, clanging cameras and tripods, and scurrying for better positions.
Bears in their natural, relaxed states are not aggressive, unless surprised, threatened, starving or with cubs at close range. Most bear attacks have happened because of these four factors, and usually in interior mountain areas, not the popular coastal Alaska destinations that have plentiful salmon all summer.
So these are a few thoughts to keep in mind when you get lucky enough to get close to a beautiful bear (or any animal) in beautiful country. Being “humble” in the field and aware of how you project yourself is a huge step toward getting photos that show a noticeable depth of trust and beauty to them that will reflect your love of the craft and your subjects.
