I enjoy watching the videos posted by both the International Wolf Center and the Wolf Conservation Center (USA).
1
I thought two write down to comments but I have not paid an elaborated effort to make comparisons and these are mostly guesses.
Firstly, as someone who has visited dog shelters and yards with several resident dogs, I was startled by the amount of ground vegetation that can be observed in the captive wolf confinements despite the high activity level by the wolves (frequent playing, rolling, probably also scratching as this is a scent-marking activity).
Dogs tend leave a rather barren ground after similar intensity (or lower intensity) of playful interactions and dog shelters are often characterized with dirt-like soil that easily turns into mud.
This might be due to soil differences but I suspect that foraging tactics by wolves vs. dogs as well as the correspondent morphology and movement behaviour might be… at play, as well.
Namely, wolves (while not ambush predators) are stealthier than dogs and their survival depends on their ability not to create disturbance.
Similarly, wolves frequently live in snowy habitats and treading lightly might be more supportive as the wolf moves over thin crust.
In order to tread lightly, certain morphological adjustments are likely evolved.
Perhaps dogs have lost these adjustments because they are have no longer been as crucial.
For example, even hunting breeds have not been selected for great stealth as they are often used to flush prey out out their hiding spots or to retrieve prey from dens, water habitats etc.
It could be that the environmental damage reported by dogs is partly attributed to our own breeding choices and dogs might have lost adjustments in morphology and behaviour that allow them to create lower disturbance levels.
On the other hand, it is also possible that the ground cover management regime is of importance.
Dogs often play on lawns and other intensely managed places while captive wolves interact on perennial, native, non-managed vegetation.
2
It appears to me that there is a difference between the most frequent types of interactions between the groups at International Wolf Center (IWC) and Wolf Conservation Center (WCC).
WCC groups mainly consist of related individuals (or, currently, also Silas + Nikai pair where the two individuals are not related but they also form an exclusive duo which impacts their bond) while IWC Exhibit Pack is comprised of a mix of related and unrelated individuals (currently, brothers Axel and Grayson, brothers Caz and Blackstone and unrelated Rieka; the two brother pairs are not interrelated).
As I have been watching these groups, it seems to me that the wolves at IWC play more while the wolves at WCC perform more allogrooming activities.
At IWC (as well as WCC Nikai + Silas pair) allogrooming is more frequent between certain pairs while the WCC family groups have allogrooming sessions that are more equally distributed between all group individuals (any individual might groom another individual or something to that effect) and they also perform allogrooming while in a group setting (namely, two individuals who are to groom one another, do not depart from the rest of the group but grooming can occur sort of chaotically among many individuals who are lying close to one another in one huge wolf pile).
It appears that in mixed groups allogrooming is more exclusive and individual dyad-specific (not all individuals will readily groom other individuals but rather there will be allogrooming buddies, e.g., Grayson + Blackstone) and the allgrooming is more likely to occur while the pair is slightly aside from the rest of the group.
Meanwhile, it seems that play is the prevalent activity in the IWC Exhibit Pack while the WCC groups have a greater array of activities and many of them involve behaviour that is less playful but more communicative in nature (play is, of course, also communicative in nature but here I intend to distinguish between play and situations that, on some level, resemble conversations, e.g., ‘can I join you?’, ‘what are you doing?’, ‘do you like me?’, ‘what is that which you have?’, ‘what is your mood?’ etc.).
Thereby, I was wondering if there might be a certain hierarchy of behaviours leading to group cohesion and whether allogrooming might be more restricted to relationships that resemble family bonds.
Regarding the first hypothesis, I wonder if play might be the first step toward group bonding and thereby the most important in relatively new group assemblies.
The Exhibit Pack assembly is also relatively new because Caz and Blackstone were only born in 2022 and joined the pack in July, 2022.
Rieka was born a year earlier (2021) and she also joined the EP in August, 2021 already.
She socialized with Caz and Blackstone when they were still pups.
Axel and Grayson were born in 2016 and they had previously formed a pack with other Exhibit Pack individuals who have now been retired.
Thus, they had to accept the new packmates while the new packmates probably felt that they were joining Axel and Grayson.
I have watched videos and read about play as a bonding activity in groups where, for example, a new breeder has been accepted replacing the old breeder.
Play might aid in overcoming certain ‘shyness’ (getting to know the new individual) which would be a first step to creating more intimate bonds.
Also, play might be initially prioritized over grooming because play allows to acquire important coordination skills that, in the wild, are crucial to survival (to hunt together).
When such cooperation has been ensured, the bonds are developed further in order to facilitate social living and to further elaborate coordination, structure, dominance etc.
Grooming might be perceived more intimate by wolves and based on associations that resemble those of mother/father – child or older sibling – younger sibling, or littermate – littermate, or aunt/uncle – nephew/niece.
I am not suggesting that grooming only occurs between actual relatives but perhaps the individuals involved must begin to perceive the interactive partner as playing the role of a certain type of relative.
In the cases of unrelated individuals, these roles even might be flexible where sometimes the individuals interact as uncle – nephew but at other times, the same individuals interact as older sibling – younger sibling.
Such uncertainty might be a bit confusing in mixed groups (but also providing a mental challenge that wolves likely enjoy).
Thus, I am suggesting that in mixed groups play might predominate because it is the first step to group cohesion (that is prioritized in the wild) and also that grooming might be a bit secondary and exclusive because the social roles are rather confounded and because a closer intimacy must be gained first.
Also, it is possible that related individuals have a more thorough, innate understanding and anticipation of reactions by other related individuals due to shared genetics and due to shared environment, upbringing etc.
Meanwhile, unrelated individuals might be wary to proceed toward greater intimacy (for example, daring to sometimes ‘annoy’ another which I have observed in WCC family groups where certain amounts of teasing and antagonizing appears to be a part of the social dynamics) because it is more difficult for them to predict the reactions by the communication partner due to their genetic and other differences.
Misinterpretation might lead to increased social tension (but also to injuries – perhaps not in these particular groups but during interactions with strangers; whence an instinctive avoidance) which wolves probably wish to prevent.
***
P.S. It seems to me that there is an intermediate state between playing and allogrooming which is that of biting (in a playful manner).
Biting (into neck fur, muzzle) appears to be more proximate and intimate than other types of play but it does not necessarily develop into grooming (which can be expressed as biting in a nibbling manner).
Notes by Ieva 