Home

Stereotypic behaviour is apparently rare in nature.

What may not come as a surprise to many is the fact that stereotypic behaviour rarely is observed in the wild. Supposedly that should signify that it is only frustrated animals that is driven to these behaviours and that these stereotypies therefore automatically should designate impoverished mental and physical welfare. The last point happen to be an issue of some dispute and personally I would not be the slightest surprised if it would turn out eventually to be the non-stereotypers who has the worst mental welfare in the typical places where such behaviours is frequently seen (antiquated Zoo's; farms with large stocks of pigs, poultry etc.).

However, there could be some good reasons to explain why classical stereotypic behaviours (emphasizing the apparent purposelessly aspect) is not often observed in nature, and here is a couple:

1) Maybe natural living animals (feral "liberated" minks etc. included) do not live long enough to develop stereotypies and if they did, then there would probably be more stereotypers out there.

To give an example from the long gone Danish Bank vole colony then it typically took around 3 months on average before they had developed stereotypies (Schoenecker et al., 2000) and bank voles happen to have a maximum lifespan in captivity of around 4.5 years (Buchalczyk, 1970). I have personally maintained individual bank voles for between 1.5 - 2 years without observing any sign of age-related deterioration and this long lifespan contrasts sharply to the expected lifespan of a wild living bank vole. According to some studies on a Polish island, where the total population of bank voles was captured four times/year then only a very few of the pups born during the spring survived their first winter. On average the lifespan was 60-100 days (Bujalska, 1975).

2) Field biologists, forest workers, tourists on safaris etc. do not keep an eye on the individual animal for sufficient time, nor do they expect to see these behaviours ("all natural behaviours serves a rational purpose"), which is the reason they do not look for signs of stereotypies.

The great field biologists (or zoologists as they would probably prefer to be called), of which there has been so precious few, have typically done their major discoveries after years of cumbersome observations of the animals; to take e.g. the chimpanzees it took both 10, 20 and 30 years before facets like tool manufactory and cannibalism was detected.

3) Stereotyping animals is promptly transferred to "permanent exemption of responsibilities" by vigilant predators, which always have a keen eye for deviant behaviour. Should an animal therefore begin to stereotype in nature one would expect the odds that this particular animal is eaten before long to increase significantly.

If I remember correctly some field biologists in Africa discovered some years ago that it was a bad idea to paint the gazelles they were studying with big white crosses. They did it to make it easier for them to locate the gazelles in the heard, but during the night the lions found the crosses helpful for their ability to focus...

Last updated the 16. November 2006