Approaches to Understanding and Managing Pacing in Sloth Bears in a Zoological Setting

Abstract

A significant challenge for animal care staff in zoos is the prevention or reduction of stereotypic behaviors in the animals they manage. Zoo professionals work to create opportunities for animals to demonstrate species-typical behaviors and to teach visitors about the natural behaviors of the animals on exhibit. Therefore the expression of stereotypic behavior presents a multi-disciplinary problem. Behavioral researchers have repeatedly examined stereotypic behavior in zoological settings to determine successful approaches to address this challenge. Three investigations of pacing in two adult male sloth bears (Melursus ursinus) at Smithsonian's National Zoological Park are presented here. In addition, a case report detailing observations of the rapid onset of an intense stereotypy in a young male sloth bear is included. The first study investigates the effects of five different enrichment strategies on pacing behavior in an adult male with a long history of pacing. The second is a two-year study examining seasonal changes and the effects of social companionship on pacing when the same adult male was housed with a breeding female, a non-breeding (contracepted) female, or a young male. In the third study, we present preliminary data on the effects of the selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor, fluoxetine, as an adjunct pharmacological treatment for pacing. And finally, our case report details the development an intense stereotypy in a young male sloth bear just after he is weaned and separated from his mother. The findings reveal that the causes, degree, and effective management of even a single observed behavior such as pacing within even a single species can vary greatly by individual and circumstance, highlighting the need for individualized assessment and management plans.

Developing a Reliable Welfare Assessment Tool for Captive Hibernatory Bear Species

“…To the author’s knowledge, there is currently no welfare assessment tool that has been specifically designed to assess the welfare of bears in captivity. Such a tool is needed considering that an animal, such as a bear, has complex species-specific needs and is known to be challenging to keep in captivity [ 3 , 5 , 39 ] due to their wide-ranging ecology [ 5 , 29 , 52 ], cognitive skills [ 53 ] and complex ecology [ 34 , 54 , 55 ]. Additionally, bears are reported as experiencing a wide range of pathological health problems in the captive setting [ 39 , 56 , 57 , 58 ], suggesting that bear welfare is not optimal in captivity.…”

About pace: How variations in method and definition affect quantification of pacing in bears

“…Bears in human care are frequently observed pacing, a repetitive behavior that has been described in all eight species ( Ursus arctos , Montaudouin & Pape, 2005; Ursus americanus , Carlstead & Seidensticker, 1991; Ursus maritimus , Shepherdson et al, 2013; Tremarctos ornatus , Maślak et al, 2013; Melursus ursinus , Bauer et al, 2013; Helarctos malayanus , Rog et al, 2015; Ailuropoda melanoleuca , Owen et al, 2005; Ursus thibetanus , Vickery & Mason, 2004). Despite its prevalence, pacing is very much an individual‐specific phenomena, varying by amount (Kelly et al, 2015), time of day (Montaudouin & Pape, 2005) and location (Vickery & Mason, 2004).…”

“…The lack of clearly defined features sometimes makes it difficult to distinguish pacing from goal‐oriented behavior, which may lead to over‐ or underestimating both types of behavior. Although pacing can be motivated by a variety of factors, such as reproductive state (J. Liu et al, 2006; M. S. Martin et al, 2020), season (Carlstead & Seidensticker, 1991), or even anticipation of positive events (Watters, 2014), it is often considered an indication of poor welfare (Bauer et al, 2013. ; Carlstead & Seidensticker, 1991; G. J. Mason & Latham, 2004; G. Mason et al, 2007, but see Watters, 2014).…”

“…Liu et al, 2006;M. S. Martin et al, 2020), season (Carlstead & Seidensticker, 1991), or even anticipation of positive events (Watters, 2014), it is often considered an indication of poor welfare (Bauer et al, 2013.;Carlstead & Seidensticker, 1991; G. J. Mason & Latham, 2004;, but see Watters, 2014).…”

In search of the optimal enrichment program for zoo‐housed animals

“…Maximizing enrichment novelty is assumed to be more effective given the generally static nature of captive environments (Clubb & Mason, 2007) and generally rapid habituation to enrichment (Canino & Powell, 2010; Carlstead et al, 1991; Gilbert‐Norton et al, 2009; Podturkin et al, 2008; Quirke & O'Riordan, 2011; Szokalski et al, 2012). However, sometimes new enrichment may have undesirable effects like increases in abnormal behavior, aggression, or a decrease in exploration (Bauer et al, 2013; Dobberstine & Shepherdson, 1994; Hahn et al, 2000; Hawkins, 2007; Honess & Marin, 2006; Kolter & Zander, 1995). Understanding how the novelty of enrichments may impact animal responses can therefore help animal managers optimize environmental enrichment programs.…”