In two families, the yearlings have been bringing the kits to the hang-out spots favoured by the yearlings themselves.
In one of these families, on the night of June 20, 2024, we (my dog and I) came across a yearling and a kit in precisely such youth gathering spot.
The yearling was closer to us upstream but the kit was further downstream.
Upon noticing us, the yearling slapped its tail and, in about half a minute, the kit mimicked the behaviour also slapping its tail.
This is interesting because the yearling would have used the signal to warn the kit and to draw its attention but the kit did not have anybody to warn.
I would like to address the tail slapping behaviour by kits in another post but here I believe it is worth noting that the kit was observing the sibling and repeating behaviours (while, previously, the kits were hardly taking much notice of the yearlings unless swimming long distances/difficult waters) which suggests that this is, indeed, an important stage in kit development related to social learning and understanding the social contexts of general behaviours.
I do not believe the kit had understood the social context of this behaviour because, according to my observations in former years, the kits are supposed to vanish after their elders slap their tails.
This year, however, the kits are very different in all families which is probably the result of their precocious maturity and early physical prowess.
Perhaps in other years the kits are not even capable of slapping their tails before they learn that this is, in fact, mostly a communication of alarm.
This year, the kits learned the behaviour (were capable of it) before they began their social education.
Accordingly, I think these kits perceive the behaviour differently and, overall, I am under impression that beavers enjoy slapping their tails, and so do the kits.
Thereby, as they have not acquired this behaviour in the context of being small, vulnerable and afraid (with limited swimming, diving skills), the kits probably have gotten the taste of the wonderful splashes they can make and they do not suppress themselves the way kits have been doing in other years.
After this splashing duo performance, the yearling proceeded to carry out the typical beaver behaviour of ‘I shall investigate and assess the situation’.
Firstly, it was clear to the yearling who we were because I had been speaking to my dog quite loudly (we had a leash entanglement problem).
These beavers recognize us, especially, if we are not even trying to be sneaky.
I believe even the tail slapping had been intended as a lesson for the kit because, mostly, if the beavers have identified us, they swim closer to study us (i.e., they do not approach us directly but they realize that they do not have to be afraid and they use the opportunity to inspect us from a safe distance or to engage in a bit more daring interaction such as swimming close to our shore and watching us from a few metre distance like tiny little crocodiles).
On June 20, the behaviour by the yearling (moreover, this particular yearling) was quite different than commonly during our encounters, and I would say that the yearling was not following its own responses but rather creating a teaching moment for the kit.
The way beavers study us under these safe but strange circumstances, the yearling was using us as ‘props’ for his lesson whereby the kit could have gained valuable insight into how to act under actual threat or simply in conditions where situation assessment was needed.
The yearling carried out the most basic routine of swimming a bit closer to us but keeping to about the middle of the relatively wide channel (where water is also the deepest and where other threats cannot approach from the opposite shore while the beaver is not paying attention to that shore).
Floating, it turned its body at a slight angle against the stream (not perpendicular but at perhaps 45 degrees).
Then it probably used its smell and hearing to make sense of us (perhaps vision, as well).
Upon ‘having identified us as living beings’, the yearling swam to the opposite shore, floated near some vegetation (maybe to conceal itself better in this rather unvegetated river section) and, along the shore, returned to the kit.
The kit did not follow the yearling, nor it mimicked the behaviour but the kit did not stir from the spot and I believe it was watching the yearling very closely.
The yearling, essentially, demonstrated the beaver threat evaluation strategy.
This yearling can be, at times, rather exuberant and ‘unpredictable’ and its encounter pattern is never as straightforward and clearly planned, as ‘traditional’ and structured.
It was obvious that the yearling was simplifying the behaviours to provide an outline of how to act under circumstances where the individual must inspect objects/subjects on the shore or approaching subjects.
I also think that after the kit had also slapped its tail, the yearling decided to advance the education because, in the previous years, the kits would not be expected (at this young age) to do anything (especially, to assess threats) but to just disappear from sight.
Apparently, the families have adapted to their fast-developing kits and they are designing the curriculum accordingly.
In fact, the evaluation of threat is at least partly a social behaviour because, essentially, any beaver could simply take flight rather than trying to figure out the situation.
The tail slapping by the kits during this stage of development indicates that they already feel a part of the family in an invested manner not merely as babies but as individuals who actively participate in the family’s affairs and who wish to exhibit social behaviours.
I think that the tail slapping has evolved as a social alarm behaviour and later it has acquired many other communicative and psychological contexts.
Thereby, I suppose that the kit’s response (to slap the tail and not to disappear, as expected at this age) indicates that the kit is already highly social, forming its social identity, finding its place and role in the family.
Perhaps the yearling acknowledged that this year’s sibling(s) would have needs to be useful to the family and presented another behaviour (situation assessment) that the kit could use in order to be socially involved but safe (because the threat assessment behaviour is inconspicuous and provides cues at how to keep out of danger).
Similarly, it is apparent that the kits are curious and that they are in need of such behavioural tools.
It is better to teach the kits how to handle their curiosity and social involvement safely than to expect that the kits would adhere to responses that should belong with their age but that do not belong with their stage of development anymore.
Notes by Ieva 