bear tracks

[uuglypher]

I have never seen a bear in the pines, but I've seen their poo before. At least, this one guy I work with is a poo analyst, and he said it was bear poo.

Luckily, according to the professional analysis, it appears that the bear was well-fed, and therefore not hungry for archaeologists.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this before. When I've spent time in areas with healthy black bear populations (north-central PA, the Adirondacks, Algonquin Provincial Park, and southern and south-east Alaska) the single most common sign of their presence wasn't on the ground (where one looks for tracks and scat) but up at eye level or above ! Look for the characteristic generally vertical to diagonal parallel scratch marks on trees made by the claws of the forefeet - they use trees much as cats use scratching posts covered with carpeting - or the corner of your easy chair... The higher the scratch marks, the taller the bear! Looking for vear sign on trees is one helluvalot easier on the back as well - less stooping to closely examine the niceties of ursine feces... Then again, none of those places where I was used to bear sign had a substrate quite so well suited to foot print impressions as do the PB's.

Dave

 

[woodjin]

I have seen these scratch marks you speak of Dave. I remember thinking that they look too high and vertical to be a deer rub. The claw marks look too deep for antlers. I have seen enough of these that i was begining to question whether they were of bear origin. They just seemed to plentiful considering how often I see the bear (never). My neighbor saw a bear on route 70, about a 1/2 mile from my house and I know someone about 3 miles away that sees the same one occasionally. Is this marking of the trees territorial, or a way of controlling claw length?

Jeff

 

[uuglypher]

Is this marking of the trees territorial, or a way of controlling claw length?

Jeff

Hi, Jeff,

I don't know, and I don't know if it is known. I do know that the act of scratching by those clawed beasts that do it does contribute to limiting claw length and promotes fragmentation of the distal keratin with consequent exposure or a newer, sharper terminus of the claw, but if I said that I knew that to be the act's sole function, I'd be saying more than I know on the matter. It may be known, but I'm not among those graced with that particular cept.

Dave

 

[woodjin]

A quick google search seems that the general consensus is that it is primarily a territorial marking. I remember hearing one time that they try to mark as high as possible to indicate their height, thus intimidating smaller bears. I just read that they are quite smelly and that a "powerful animal smell" can linger after they have left an area. Of course, I know a few people like that too.

Jeff

 

[uuglypher]

A quick google search seems that the general consensus is that it is primarily a territorial marking. I remember hearing one time that they try to mark as high as possible to indicate their height, thus intimidating smaller bears. I just read that they are quite smelly and that a "powerful animal smell" can linger after they have left an area. Of course, I know a few people like that too.

Jeff

Hi, Jeff-
I'm aware of the consensus that tree scratching by bears is a territorial behavior, I'm just unaware of any substantive proof of that commonly held belief. I'm always leery about conflating "commonly held opinion / consensus" with "fact / truth". I've no problem with recognizing that opinion about tree scratching as a reasonable hypothesis upon which to operate; as long as we don't forget that it is still an untested hypothesis.

I'm just picky that way... I'm told it's a character flaw (by those who'd rather accept "consensus" than demand proof before stating that what is stated as fact, is, in fact, a fact).

Whew! Everybody gotta believe in something,... so I jes' believe I'll have a drink.
And that's a fact!

Dave

 

[woodjin]

I wouldn't call it a character flaw Dave. It is good to acknowlege when something is assumed and not fact. The only problem would be in trying to prove definitively why that behavior exists. I have no formal background in any of the biological sciences but I suspect it could be possible if one was to engage a study on the matter specifically, but I doubt enough interest exists to warrant the effort. I suppose essentially what it boils down to from my concerns on matter is that...Hey! there's freaking bears all over the place!

Cheers,

Jeff

 

[uuglypher]

It is good to acknowlege when something is assumed and not fact. The only problem would be in trying to prove definitively why that behavior exists.

Cheers,

Jeff

Hey, Jeff-
I couldn't agree more. I did, many moons ago ... Spring semester, 1961, actually..., take a course at Penn State in animal behavior - it was double-listed in the Psychology and Zoology departments. It was fascinating and dealt predominantly with a variety of serious attempts to resolve the quandary you stated. I do clearly recall the prof, on the last day of class, stating - with his tongue only slightly in his cheek - the oft-repeated "Harvard Law of Animal Behavior" which specifically states that: "...under carefully controlled conditions of temperature, humidity, photoperiod, season, nutritional state, age and development, degree of sexual maturity, and socialization appropriate to the species under observation, an animal will behave as it damned well pleases!"

At any rate, I agree that it's great to know that there are, in fact, some black bears in the PB's!

I do so wish the state of NJ would pull its head back out into the sunshine and realize what an incredibly invaluable resource the remaining pine barrens are - in so many realms of importance that transcend the mere, nonce fiscal benefits of providing more and more acres for commercial/residential development. It is depressing to realize the degree to which the general "lumpenproletariat" has loss awareness and appreciation of the importance of wildness / wilderness to the fabric of their being. I wonder when Thoreau was last required reading in high school English and / or Biology?

Crap! And now I'm supposed to go off, gently, to sleep?

Dave

 

[foofoo]

i hunted bear with a camp on the opeongo river on the edge of algonquin provincial park in ontario back in 91 and 92. a couple was camping and they both got killed by a black bear. i seem to remember the claw markings being on birch and beach trees mostly. dont forget in the pines you have other clawed critters like cats-racoons and i even seen a ground hog climb a tree better than any squirrel. http://websearcht.cs.com/cs/boomfra...&remove_url=http://www.eham.net/articles/9262

 

[uuglypher]

i hunted bear with a camp on the opeongo river on the edge of algonquin provincial park in ontario back in 91 and 92. a couple was camping and they both got killed by a black bear. i seem to remember the claw markings being on birch and beach trees mostly. dont forget in the pines you have other clawed critters like cats-racoons and i even seen a ground hog climb a tree better than any squirrel. http://websearcht.cs.com/cs/boomfra...&remove_url=http://www.eham.net/articles/9262

It's the size / width of the forepaw and the width of spacing of the claws that produces scratch marks identifiable as those of a black bear. The fingers of the human hand will easily follow the typically four parallel scratches through their typically four- to 12-inch course down the tree. No domestic cat, bobcat, raccoon, grey fox, marten, or groundhog/marmot/woodchuck, or porcupine, could ever make scratch marks like those of a black bear. I suppose that a big lynx or a wolverine could come close, but lynx are rare in the contiguous 48 and I'm not aware of wolverines scratching on trees.

As for the trees on which they will scratch? Birch, beech, apple, wild cherry, aspen, pine, spruce, hemlock, and tamarack/larch are all at risk of a scratching if there be bear about.

Dave

 

[piker56]

I've hiked in areas with significant Black Bear populations and seen trees scratched. The trees I saw were pretty well shredded, you couldn't miss it. The hand width and 4 to 12" long scratches is what I saw, but it was also the amount of tree damage that was pretty amazing. Seeing the results, I'd hate to interrupt a bear while it was clawing a tree. So far in my PB wanderings, I haven't seen a tree where the markings resemble what I've seen elsewhere.

 

[woodjin]

The scratching that I saw was on the south side of Lebanon Lake. I was with Bob, and Steve and Stu and Ed, but I think only Ed saw the same scratching I saw. If Ed sees this post maybe he will recall. I remember thinking it was very vertical and high, claw marks were evident and the tree (a pitch pine) was loosing sap everywhere.

Jeff

 

[ecampbell]

I remember it was over my head, it was way to high for a deer to scratch. It was in the area where we found all those clothes.
Also I think it was a cedar tree.
Ed

 

[foofoo]

if a big ole critter makes there home in a tree climbing up and down several times a day then i would say the distance between scratch marks would be hard to discern for a novice nature lover.bears also mark and claim there territory by snapping off the tops of smaller trees like 6 footers and chewing the heck out of it. i have seen trees like several times. the biggest one i saw was in the sproul forest in pennsylvania. this had to be one big old mean boar of a bear to do that kinda damage. i dont see bears living in the pines due to the poor food source but since the barrens keep shrinking and inviting back yards increase and small farms are available as a food source i think things may change down the road. a bear will have something like a 40 square mile range. near my home town we had 2 bears visit last year. one near the naval base pier and one in sayerville. i live near the shore so i think its just bears being inquisitive.there are miles of military only roads and wood strips that will act as a hiway for them. these are roads that cut through some heavily built up areas.