Curiosity in the American Black Bear

CURIOSITYIN THE AMERICANBLACK BEAR ELLISS. BACON,University of Tennessee, Instituteof Ecology,Townsend, TN 37882

Abstract: American black bears (Ursus americanus) were tested to quantify their response to novel objects placed in their environment. The results indicatethat the level of orientationmay be greaterin the black bear than in other North Americancarnivores. The explorationof objects by the black bear is characterizedby a high degree of contact with the objects. This contact consists primarilyof manipulatingthe objects with the forepaws and chewing the objects. The intense curiosity of the black bear should be recognized and consideredin the managementof this species and in the evaluation of bear/humanconflicts.

Understand the behavior of an animal and its tive data on behaviors considered as curiosity were relationshipto its environmentis an importantconsid- lacking. eration in management of areas where humans and The curiosity of the bear had primarilybeen related bears come into frequent contact, but it is often over- by anecdotaland narrativeinformation. Everyone has a looked as a topic of research. The relationshipof game good story but no quantitative data. Several authors species to their environmentis usually studied in terms have noted that the bear exhibits a great deal of curios- of populationsand trends without consideringbehavior ity about humans and man-made objects. Leyhausen of individual animals. In practice, however, manage- (1948) and Burghardtand Burghardt(1972) described ment of large, solitary animals such as the black bear in young black bears manipulatingunfamiliar objects and a preserve situation is often on an individual level, food with both mouth and forepaws. Krott and Krott which requires an understandingof their behavior. (1963) describedthe first outing of 2 bottle-raisedbrown To obtain useful information about behavior, re- bears (Ursus arctos); both young animals immediately search must be designed to gather data systematically explored by digging, eating, or chewing on almost all throughdirect observation. Informationabout behavior objects available to them in a garden. is too often obtainedanecdotally, without actual obser- Older bears also seem to exhibit a good deal of vation of the animals. Observation is difficult but curiosity. Skinner (1952) speaks of bears investigating necessary to obtain clear information about what the campsites in Yellowstone National Park without at- animals are doing. Data from captive animals can be tempting to obtain food. Bears in campgrounds and in behavior observed in very important explaining the backcountrycampsites are a problem in Great Smoky field and in directing the field researchertoward be- Mountains National Park. Food may be a factor, but havior that may otherwise be overlooked. Beeman (1971) reported that even campgroundbears Also, the behavior types being studied need to be consume only about 15 percentnonnative foods, which defined so that their is not lost in importance semantics. does not supportthe assumptionthat bears rely on gar- With this need in mind, curiosityis operationallydefined bage as a food staple. In addition, nonfood-relatedob- as an animal's orientationand/or contact with novel objects, such as trail signs, polyethylene aerial survey in jects its environment.Behavior that falls under this markers, mast traps, and weather stations, have all definition includes play, exploration, approach/ been damaged by bears. and orientation. avoidance, Theoreticalcomponents of Describing and quantifying curiosity in the black behavior will not be consideredhere. This paper deals bear could help to evaluate and possibly predict out- with what the animal is to likely do in given situations. comes of bear/human, bear/environment, and bear/ In other how curious is the words, black bear? managementinteractions. 'Ihs study is an introduction The of in mammals study curiosity began early. Sci- to the description of curiosity in the black bear. The entists such as Darwin (1878), Morgan (1890), and research was conducted near Tremont Environmental Romanes established the (1969) clearly existence of Centerin the GreatSmoky MountainsNational Parkin intense curiosity in mammalian in species, particularly 1972-73. An extensive study by Glickman and Sroges the primates. this interest in Unfortunately, early (1966) of displayed curiosity in more than 100 species was not and not until the curiosity continued, late 1940s of zoo animals was used as a model. Glickman and did become a of behavioral curiosity again topic study. Sroges intended to quantify the response of animals to These studies, however, tended to discuss the observed novel objects placed in their environment. The proce- behaviors and and theoretically, descriptions quantita- dure was simple; but it provided, for the first time, a 154 BEARS- THEIR BIOLOGYAND MANAGEMENT method whereby species could be compared, and not Each set of objects was placed in each animal's only quantitativebut qualitative informationcould be home cage, 1 set at a time. The objects remained 6 collected. minutesand were then removed. The next set of objects I thank the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, was placed in the cage after a time lapse of 10 minutes. Tremont EnvironmentalEducation Center, and G. M. Objects were always presentedto the bear in this order: Burghardt. This research was supported, in part, by blocks, chains, dowels, hoses. NIMH Grants MH 15707 and MH 20565 awardedto Responses to the objects were recorded during the G. M. Burghardt. 6-minute period. Notation was made duringeach of the 72 5-second as to whether the bear was METHODS intervals orientingto or in contact with the presentedobjects. An The were 2 female black bears. subjects sibling orientationscore (0) was given when the bear paid at- These animals were hand-raised from 3 together tention to but did not touch the objects. A contact score months of in a seminaturalenclosure. The age large (C) was given when the bear was in contact with the enclosure was in half so the bears could be partitioned objects. If contact occurredwithout noticeable orienta- on either side or Both animals nor- placed separated. tion toward the objects, no score was given. had full access to both sides of the enclosure. mally Three differenttests were run, using this procedure. The bears' at the 3 test dates were ages approxi- An account of the bear's behavior during the first test 16 20 and 26 months. Their mately months, months, was recordedby hand. Behavior duringthe second and enclosure and care are described in detail Bacon by third tests was recorded with super-8 movie film. (197.3). During the test, the bears were separated. Pairs of RESULTS AND DISCUSSION novel objects were placed in each bear's side of the enclosure. Four sets of objects were used: Quantitative Results (1) Two blocks, 1 measuring 5.0 = 10.2 = pine Quantitativeresults of this study indicate a very high 61.0 cm and the other 2.5 = 30.5 cm. level of curiosity. The scores of each animal for the Two steel chains, 1 #20 welded chain (2) novel in the 3 tests are given in Table 61.0 cm and 1 smaller chain objects presented measuring 1. It is unfortunatethat only visual orientationand ac- 30.5 cm. measuring tual contact are scored with this technique. Odor re- (3) Two maple dowels, 1 measuring 2.2 = 91.4 sponses are ignored, and these repsonses may be im- cm and the other 1.6 = 30.5 cm. portant in bears that have well-developed chemosen- (4) Two water hoses, 1 measuring2.5 = 61.0 cm sory systems. and the other 1.3 = 30.5 cm. Chains arousedthe highest degree of curiosity in the The blocks, dowels, and hoses were used only bears, followed in descending order by dowels, hoses, once. The chains were reusedbut were washed between and blocks. The attention given to the objects is best presentationsto eliminate olfactory cues. appreciatedby comparingthe percentageof time spent

Table 1. Time spent oriented to and in contact with novel objects introduced for 6-minute periods (72 consecutive 5-second intervals) to 2 captive American black bears, at 3 age levels. All scores are given in number of 5-second intervals the subject oriented to or was in contact with the novel objects.

16 months old 20 months old 26 months old Total Total Totaonl Contact on Orientation Contact Orientation Contact Orientation response response response

Subject 1 Blocks 1 18 19 3 0 3 1 70 71 Chains 2 70 72 0 70 70 1 66 67 Dowels 1 65 66 0 72 72 1 67 68 1 71 72 Tubing 0 35 35 0 72 72 Subject 2 Blocks 6 10 16 0 72 72 0 69 69 Chains 2 70 72 0 72 72 2 68 70 Dowels 0 67 67 0 72 72 1 48 49 1 70 71 Tubing 2 31 33 0 64 64 CURIOSITY * Bacon 155 with them. The bears attendedto the objects an average thanthe othercarivores tested. Even thoughthese data of 82 percentof the time the objects were in their enclo- were collected from captive animals and the numberof sures. subjects was small, the intensity of the bears' response A comparisonof the responses to the 4 sett of objects still has importantimplications. Black bears may be among the bears, other carnivores, and p)rimates is more likely to approachand come in contact with novel given in Table 2. The greaterresponse of tthe bears to objects in their environmentthan other animals. Prob- the chains, comparedwith the responses of c)ther cari- lems with black bearshave not typically been viewed in vores, may result from the bears' greaterab ility to use terms of curiosity. However, it seems that bears may the forepaws to grasp and manipulateobjec ts. exhibit an intrinsic behavior to approachand manipulate new objects in their home ranges. Table 2. Average of the time spent oriented to and in contact wi th novel objects for 2 captive American black bears, compared with averages for other carnivores and for primates. All scores are given in number of 5-seco ,ndintervalsofa Behaviors TowardNovel Objects possible 72 intervals per session that the animals spent orientec i to or in contact with novel objects. The bears initially reacted to all test objects in a Black bears Carivoresa Primates" similar manner. When the object was introduced, the animals Blocks 41.67 38.49 33.79 would approach, smell the object, manipulate Chains 70.50 19.07 24.43 it with their forepaws, and then begin to chew on it. Dowels 65.67 29.58 28.39 The use of the forepaws was very pronounced. The 57.83 39.98 26.21 Tubing bears seldom were in contact with the objects unless aGlickman and Sroges (1966). they were using their forepaws to grasp, hold down, or turnthe objects. Both animals were adept at lifting and The effect of captivity on the responses vvas not as- turning over the objects. The animals could partially sessed. However, Davis and Dugan (1975) conductedcondcte grasp the objects by bending the claws of the front foot a similarstudy with the same 2 bears and 4 z ooanils downward, almost touching the front pad of the foot. - a black bear, 2 sun bears ( Malayan (HelarctosHelctos and over an was and an assumed be twnth Lifting turning object accomplishedby malayanus), hybrid the fartherside of the and and a black bear. TI rresus grasping object pulling up- grizzly (Ursus arctos) ward and back toward the the of indicated that the more sterile the envirot ment,te body. Although pads the front paws of the bears could be turnedso that they higher was the responsiveness to the novel objects. were perpendicularto the ground,flipping of objects by Within their sample, age, sex, and species differences a rotation of the foreleg was not observed. Also, the were not as as housing differenc,es. The 2 apparent bears never lifted an with the of the front black bears of this housed in a seminattural enclo- object pads study foot turned upward. All lifting was a raking motion sure were less responsive than the zoo anirr ndas.o with the claws turned downward and back. The bears Although Glickman and Sroges (1966) found older were observedusing one forepawto lift the chains, dow- zoo animals tended to be less responsive, t] herresults els, and from the The chain was with bears were inconclusive. tubing ground. grasped between the claws and the foot pad, as described. The A comparisonof the mean of total ises among respor and the carnivoresis shown in Table 3. The bearrs exibited dowels tubing were lifted in the same manneras the chain or by pushing the object between the toes and a greater level of curiosity toward the no, l bjt lifting the forepaw upward. Table 3. Mean total of responses of carnivores to novel objects introduced into The objects were often held between the forepaws their environment. All scores are in number of 5-seconc intervalsof a given for chewing. The blocks, dowels, and hoses were held 72 intervals session that the animals oriented to or in contact possible per spent of 4 with novel objects. in 1 positions, illustratedin Fig. 1. Carnivores Meanscore Exploration of the blocks, dowels, and hoses gener- ally occurred with the bears on their stomachs. Feloidea" lying Superfamily: of the chain Family: Felidaea 32.10 Exploration included playing with it, Genus: Pantheraa 45.06 which was often the case with other objects. During Genus: Felisa 17.94 play, the bears would assume a variety of body posi- Superfamily: Canoidea" 34.35 Family: Canidaea 31.00 tions. Both bears would sit upright, with legs forward, Family: Procyonidaea 36.91 and pull the objects to their stomachs, rolling and Family: Mustelidae" 32.86 wrestling with them. Family: Ursidae 58.92 Clawing at the objects was observed but did not "Glickman and Sroges (1966) occur frequently. The blocks and tubing were pawed 156 BEARS - THEIR BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

FLAT ON GROUND ONE PAWAGAINST THE OTHER

BETWEEN PAWS DOWNWARDPRESSURE WITH ONE PAW

Fig. 1. Use of the forepaws by black bears to hold objects. CURIOSITY* Bacon 157 initially but were then turned, held, and chewed. Both They would assume a variety of body positions and bears oriented to the opening at each end of the hoses. were very active. The forepaws were used to hold, lift, They would place a claw in the hole and pull, as if and swing the chain. One bear would lie on her back trying to pry something out. and hold the chain above her face with one forepaw. She would then pass the chain from paw to paw, placing 1 also involved The Exploration invariably chewing. or 2 claws in the links and allowing an end of the chain methods of illustratedin 1 were used to holding Fig. to dangle and brush her face. secure the in order to chew, lick, and smell objects Curiosity is one of many behaviors that should be them. The bears would use a of canines or molars pair assessed for ideal management of this family of ani- to the wood. After it was the bears splinter splintered, mals. Behavioral data are being recognized as an im- would use the incisors to the and grasp objects lightly portantmanagement tool, and delineationof predictable from them. The canines were used to pull pieces grasp behavior is importantin evaluation, control, and pre- the in to Both bears tubing attempts pull portionsaway. vention of bear/humanconflicts. The recognition of a smelled the between bouts of intermittently objects high degree of intrinsiccuriosity in the black bear may chewing. aid managers in conflict situations. The bear is not The response to the chains was the most interesting. motivatedsolely by a search for food in its approachto After initially smelling and chewing a chain, both ani- the humanenvironment. The conscientious removal of mals would rake and lift it and let it fall several times. food without regard to the bears' innate curiosity may Then the bears would begin to play with the chain. not eliminate potential conflict.

LITERATURECITED DAVIS,M. ANDB. DUGAN.1975. A study of curiosity in the E. S. 1973. of and behavior Ursidae:responses to novel objects.33pp. (Mimeogr.) BACON, Investigation perception ANDR. W. SROGES.1966. in of the Americanblack bear GLICKMAN,S. E., Curiosity (Ursus americanus). Ph.D. zoo Behavior 27:151-188. Dissertation. Univ. of Knoxville. animals. Tennessee, 161pp. KROTT,P., AND G. KROTT.1963. Zum Verhalten des BEEMAN,L. E. 1971. Seasonal food habits of the black bear Braunbaren(Ursus arctos L. 1758) in den Z. in the Mountainsof Tennes- Alpen. (Ursus americanus) Smoky Tierpsychol. 30:160-206. see and North Carolina. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Tennes- LEYHAUSEN,_P. 1948. Knoxville. Biobachtungenaneinem jungen see, 62pp. Schwarzbaren(Ursus americanus Pall.). Z. Tierpsychol. BURGHARDT,G. M., ANDL. S. BURGHARDT.1972. Notes 6:433-444. on behavioral development of two female black bear MORGAN,D. L. 1890. Animal life and intelligence. Arnold, cubs: the first eight months. Pages 207-220 in S. Her- London. 420pp. rero, ed. Bears - theirbiology and management.IUCN ROMANES,G. J. 1969. Mental evolution in animals. AMS Publ. New SEr. 23. Press, New York, 411pp. (Reprint of 1884 ed.) DARWIN,C. 1878. The descent of man and selection in rela- SKINNER,M. P. 1925. Bears in the Yellowstone. A. C. tion to sex. Appleton, New York. 688pp. McClurg and Co., Chicago. 158pp.