January 19, 2010 – 8:12 PM CT
Today, Lily went out and bit a balsam fir bough off a tree and brought it into the den—just like her Aunt Donna has been doing (see update for 1-18-10). She chewed it into smaller pieces for bedding. She also brought in one of the rubber bands that holds the camera in place and tried to chew it into smaller pieces. She gave up and raked it into the bedding. I’m sure people were concerned. If she did swallow it, it would pass through. It’s not something the cubs could or would ingest. It’s possible she defecated when she was outside, just like her Aunt Donna has been doing. Could defecation at this time of year is partly due to pressure on the colon from late term fetuses? Bears continue to make feces during winter even without food intake—just like starving people do. It comes from dead cells sloughed off the digestive tract and sometimes includes bits of bedding and hair ingested while grooming.
Where does Lily fit into our overall research?
Our methods and beliefs about bears have evolved over our 43 years. We grew up reading scary bear articles in hunting magazines, seeing artist portrayals with unnatural snarls, seeing taxidermy with unnatural snarls, and reading warnings in national parks written by attorneys who probably grew up seeing the same misinformation we did. We believed we should never get between a black bear mother and cubs, that bears become aggressive if they eat human food, and that bears become more likely to attack if they lose their fear of people. These are among the most common misconceptions about black bears.
We never even thought of the possibility of gaining the trust of wild bears and watching how they live. We pioneered methods based on what we thought we knew about bears at the time—methods now used around the world. We captured bears, tranquilized them, ear-tagged them, took blood samples—and many measurements. We radio-collared dozens of bears and followed their telemetry signals with airplanes. We plotted their movements on maps but had no idea what the bears were doing under the forest canopy. We were senior authors on more peer-reviewed scientific articles about bears than anyone in the world. We looked at all we “knew” and realized how little it was and how unimportant it was to the welfare of bears.We realized only so much can be learned by measuring tranquilized bears and putting telemetry dots on maps. The few glimpses we got of bears running across roads or running away in the woods taught us nothing of importance. Those glimpses taught us little about bear personalities, how bears think, meanings of vocalizations and body language, and what components of the forest are important to them. Droppings revealed clues about diet, but the most easily digested foods were under-represented or missed. Our telemetry locations were too imprecise to even be certain of habitat use. And when we were certain of the habitat, there was no way to know how the bears were using it. We couldn’t advise forest managers how to manage forests for bears.
Slowly, we realized that black bears are not the ferocious animals we once thought. We realized that in our thousands of meetings with wild bears and the many “close calls” we thought we had, we were never attacked, even when catching cubs in front of upset mothers. We knew people had been killed by black bears, but that amounted to about one black bear out of a million killing someone. By comparison, one grizzly bear out of about 50,000 kills someone, and one human (including all ages) out of about 18,000 kills someone in North America. Eventually, we realized that most of what we, the public, and many wildlife officials have believed about these animals is wrong. Those beliefs have created unnecessary fear, leading to needless killings of black bears. People will not coexist with animals they fear. As a result, bears have been eliminated from big parts of their range, and some species are endangered.
We realized there was much more to be learned, and it was possible to learn it. We found we could gain the trust of wild bears. It took time, but bears learned to trust and ignore us. We weren’t food-givers, but not competitors. We weren’t objects of their affection, but we weren’t enemies. We were just there, inconsequential, and virtually ignored as we recorded all that they did in clinical detail. We found that if we tried to sneak up on bears we knew, we couldn’t see them. We had to identify ourselves with our voices. Some had to double-check by getting downwind. Sue Mansfield was walking with a bear family when a hiker appeared far down the trail. The bear family ran, Sue with them. The bears watched the hiker pass and then resumed foraging.
In the early years, we didn’t touch the bears, thinking it would somehow be wrong or dangerous. Consequently, we did not develop the mutual trust we have with certain bears today. Touch is a universal language. Through it, we developed deeper mutual trust. As a result, we dispensed with injurious captures and risky tranquilizers. Trust is what enabled us to put a camera in Lily’s den without her defending it or abandoning it. With trust, we placed radio-collars on non-tranqulized bears, later joined them in the forest, and obtained better data than ever. We usually walked with females, including mothers with cubs. During mating season, males came around and got used to us, too. As we blended into their woodwork, the bears showed us the most intimate details of their lives, giving a better understanding of their personalities, language, social behavior, diet, and travels than ever had been possible. We learned which components of the forest were important to their survival.
Above all, we learned the information people need to know to form their attitudes. The best way to convey this information is for people to learn directly from the bears themselves. Lily is part of that effort.
Pervasive misconceptions are the biggest problem bears face because they are the basis for people’s attitudes. The media frequently exploits people’s fears for the profits fear can bring. Educators often unknowingly regurgitate the misconceptions as facts. Biologists with the best intentions often do the same. Few ever have opportunities to overcome their misconceptions by spending time with non-tranquilized bears. Most people resist change. Lily is important. Just by being a normal bear going about her business, she is showing a different side of black bears than is put forth in the media and by all those who think it is their duty, above all, to warn people about bears. People can watch Lily, try to learn more from www.bear.org , and form their own opinions. The goal of the North American Bear Center is simply to tell the truth about bears, replacing misconceptions with scientific facts.
In future updates, we’ll share more about the research and the many misconceptions the bears are proving wrong.
—Lynn Rogers, Ph.D.
