Games that adult/subadult wolves play. Strategizing game

Recently I began a thread of posts concerning the types of play I have observed in the IWC Exhibit Pack live stream camera feeds (North / South).

I will not repeat the introductory part and you can read the first post here – Games that adult/subadult wolves play. Social status dynamics game.

I will, however, mention that the pack consists of 5 individuals:

• two brothers Axel and Grayson (born in 2016);
• Rieka (born in 2021);
• two brothers Caz and Blackstone (born in 2022).

Rieka is not related to any of the males.

Axel and Grayson are not related to Caz and Blackstone.

Axel and Grayson have partly raised all the three other wolves who joined them in different years as ca. 4 months old pups (in July).

Rieka was a yearling when Caz and Blackstone joined their pack.

The second type of playful interaction that I have observed and that has origins in pup play but that I believe has become more elaborated in these adults (acquiring also a compensatory aspect to their captive situation) is that of strategizing.

Of course, any game involves strategizing but this particular game is based on some objective which can be food-related or social.

The food-related objective is typically quite simple – to get some food item that one of the individual possesses.

The social objective is to attract someone’s attention (mostly, to solicit attention from the dominant elders, Axel or Grayson) and to hold it for oneself without sharing with others (who step in to divert the attention to themselves).

This is nothing new and wolves play these game all the time at all ages (e.g., tug-of-war version of the food game).

Also, this could mimick some of the scenarios observed at the wolves’ family table.

I will discuss the food game because I believe it is rather important – it appears to incorporate two types of strategies that impose three types of roles on the players.

Also, I think that this game has been developed by the captive pack in order to compensate for their inability to hunt in packs and to carry out the respective behaviours.

These roles are somewhat merged.

Someone holds the control of the food item and this individual is then both the prey and the competitor.

The individual is distinguished from other competitors because the other competitors vie for the same item which they are not in possession of.

At the same time, I think it is important that the food item has ‘a life of its own’ (it is, so to speak, in motion and deliberates ‘escape’) which has been given to it by the individual who controls it.

Thus, the objective is both to outsmart the competitor (the food holder) but also to ‘catch the prey’.

Why do I suppose that the food possessor is not another competitor but represents the prey?

Because this individual is treated differently than others who do not possess the prey and who are vying for it.

Sometimes this individual is dominant but only as a consequence of their social status.

For example, if Axel or Grayson are the food controllers, they are dominant and therefore they are treated differently.

However, if Caz or Blackstone are the food controllers, they are treated differently but not in a manner which suggests their dominance (due to food ownership at the time).

It is a bit as if this individual is not involved in the game in the same way as others are and as if this individual participates in a capacity that we sometimes (in human games) term as ‘game master’ (not a player themselves or a player in an added capacity, not in the sole capacity).

To me it appears that this individual is perceived as a sort of ‘puppeteer’ for the food item keeping it ‘alive’ (with its own behavioural pattern).

Also, quite often, these are not chase, nor tug games.

These are games where the food holder stands sort of ‘at bay’ (in a similar fashion as a moose would or a herd of bison/musoxen would) and the rest of the individuals are using their tactiques to snatch at the food item.

I have to point out that in the wild, in such contexts, the wolves would attempt to provoke the standing prey to run (rather than trying to subdue it while it is still confrontational).

It is difficult to make certain claims that during these stand-offs the wolves are also trying to get the food holder to run, but rarely they can actually snatch the item while the food possessor is standing still and often the sequence evolves into a chase.

It also does not seem that the wolves are very serious in their attempts to snatch the item (and altogether these games are not so much about food because sometimes it happens that the play becomes pursued in a purely social capacity and the food is just dropped and forgotten).

It might be possible that the objective is to get ‘the prey to run’ and, interestingly, this would imply that the ‘competitors’ are actually cooperating in order to confuse the prey.

Outwardly, the other wolves (who are supposedly vying for the food item) compete with one another and/or use one another in their strategies seemingly for their own gain (as I will explain below while discussing Rieka’s favourite strategy).

However, these wolves are clever and, of course, the food controller is not an ungulate who will run if its anxiety level surpasses a threshold.

Thus, the goal might be for the apparent ‘competitors’ to confound the food controller so that the ‘game master’ began running (which is a far likelier state during which the food item can be snatched and tugged).

It is curious to assume that wolves might use one another in a cooperative fashion (just like in hunting) but with an entirely different array of behaviours (resembling those of competition and probably evolved in the wild during prey consumption events at carcass).

I think, however, that this game is different from the scenario at a carcass (where an individual or the breeding pair might also control the prey and the subordinates might try to snatch some pieces or to plead for access).

It is different because, in this game, the role of the food controller can be passed on to another individual, including a subordinate individual, the goal is to become the food possessor (but not necessarily the consumer as the food item is not always actually consumed but the passing on of it is the fun part) and it appears that it is of importance that the food item is mobile (that it can be approached, even sneaked upon, chased etc. which does not pertain to a kill).

I think that in order to come up with this strategizing game, wolves have fused several wild behaviour scenarios into one game.

I believe that the fundamental concept is to have the prey standing at bay and to getting it to freak out and to lose control.

In this situation, however, the ‘prey’ is the wolf holding the food item and the wolf is not going to lose control (‘freak out’) in the same manner prey would.

Thus, the food controller must be gotten confused (in a similar way, for example, some believe a stoat might use its mesmerizing high-speed ultra-acrobatics dance to entirely perplex a lagomorph which becomes entranced or even dies of heart-attack) rather than scared (because, of course, in this pack the individuals would not intimidate one another seriously).

In order to get the game master confused, the other wolves make a fuss which outwardly suggests competition among the food-snatching individuals but which might be a cooperative ‘performance act’ to make the situation so dynamic (socially and physically) that the food holder ‘loses it’ and runs (or loosens the hold on ‘prey’).

I will add examples of typical strategies that the ICW captive wolves have developed and which I have observed and which seem favoured by the individuals.

Caz and Blackstone’s strategy (especially toward Grayson and Axel) is mostly that of pawing and cooing and being altogether subordinate and groveling to a degree that it becomes difficult to even see behind this mass of adorable, pup-like fur, paws and wriggling.

(As you have noticed, very frequently, the food controller is one of the older wolves but I still do not believe that this strategy game mimicks the more customary food handout scenario at carcass.)

Once the food holder has made sense of this superintense subordinate approach, the other brother steps in with even more pawing and groveling, and the intensity is resumed as well as complicated by the attempts of these two to push the other out of focus.

When observed individually during rest or feeding, Caz and Blackstone are no longer pups and they can be as mature and self-possessed as the most dignified wolf that ever lived.

It is probably also very clear to them that the food will not be given to them out of ‘the melting of heart’ by the food holder (of course, this strategy might work in other situations but in this game, the hunger is not real and the solicitations of food are probably not perceived as seriously intended and therefore not considered as such).

The sheer intensity of this submissive wriggling, squirming can force the individual to slightly retreat (or even to run) – just like in the case of pups approaching the post-hunt adults.

It is not as much the fear of injury as it is the overwhelming character of the boisterous appealing (just like one might step back from a million wildly bouncing fluffy balls).

On the other hand, the submissive act can become so intense that the dominant individual might feel inclined to bring it down a notch which would involve a growl and a slight snap (and thereby the loosening of hold on the food item or even dropping it).

Rieka’s favourite method (she is a very small female and it is probably more difficult for her to partake with as much physically persuasive presence) is sneaking up on someone from the back and then nipping at his tail.

Often, during these strategizing games, Rieka would use Caz and Blackstone as distractors.

While Caz and Blackstone are getting Axel or Grayson dizzy with their whirlpools of adorable pleas, Rieka circles the food holding dominant and nips him on his tail/bottom.

This forces the food holder to spin around or to become startled.

It was Rieka who led me to suspect this game was not necessarily about acquiring the food item for oneself but that the purpose might be to change the dynamics of the stand-off leading into the next phase.

As she nips at someone’s tail, she cannot hope to get the food item.

Firstly, the food controller is rarely so startled as to actually drop the food item.

Secondly, during this move, Rieka is often too far from the center of the activity and if the food item was dropped (or if it became available), it would require enormous agility (which Rieka, of course, might possess) to actually get at the food item before Caz and Blackstone (or the game master himself) who are standing much closer to the object.

This led me to wonder whether these individuals (Rieka, Caz and Blackstone) are not, in fact, cooperating (like they would during hunt) even if it does seem that they are acting each for themselves and Rieka is even using Caz and Blackstone as distraction.

Another reason behind my doubt that this is a competitive rather than collaborative game (and that the objective is to attain a shift in dynamics and not to attain the food item itself) lies with the fact that there is never really a true winner in these types of games.

The food is not ultimately possessed by anyone, and it seems almost irrelevant.

Often it is impossible to remember who actually got away with the food item (if anyone did) because there is no conclusive stage where the winner shows off or departs to consume the food item.

Finally, Axel and Grayson’s favourite strategy appears to be that of demonstrating a far greater openness to play and investment in this cheerfulness than usual.

Typically, these two brothers act as patriarchs.

They certainly play with others but they also often exhibit an attitude of solemnity and apparent ‘unwillingness’ to play (which is turned into a game of itself, including the strategizing version whereby the objective is to achieve a shift in focus of the dominant wolf’s attention toward this or another individual).

It is not as easy to entice them to play and when they do, those are special events.

Thus, I believe, when they wish for the younger wolves to become distracted from something (e.g., the control over a food item), they present themselves as ready to gambol, more so than usual.

The younger wolves become enthused and excited over this development (because it is such a treat to them) that they just forget whatever their former purpose was.

I do not suppose that Axel or Grayson would actually snatch food from the youths but they seem to participate in these displays whereby the food holder must lose control of the object.

The strategizing, as it can be seen, is more directed at the psychological states of the individuals as well as using their character/status etc. – than it is directed at true agility/speed etc. (and certainly not a strategy of physically overpowering someone unless being adorably squirmy is considered physical overpowering).

Such games often occur in a standing position (individuals quite close to one another) and running can either precede or proceed.

Therefore, I do not think that these games are about physical prowess as much as they are about strategizing and using emotions, affiliations, confusion, distraction and similar states in order to gain a shift in the dynamics.

Probably not many wolf experts would agree with me on this but I believe that these wolves have combined several ‘real life’ contexts into a new type of a game.

These contexts are those of:

• pups playing/competing for food;
• subordinates eliciting food at carcasses and dominants controlling the distribution;
• hunting prey through cooperation; in particular – making the prey ‘loose its cool’.

Fusing these contexts to create a new type of all-encompassing activity (that must be nourishing to these wolves who do not get to engage their cognitive skills fully in the contexts of tracking, hunting, travelling etc.) is a really exciting accomplishment.

It suggests that wolves can detach the physical behaviour itself from its meaning (its circumstantial content) and that wolves do not simply carry out the same acts in play that they do in real life (only tuning down some aspects that might threaten their sociality).

This would imply they understand what they are doing and why they are doing it.

They are aware of what psychological states, skills and motivations are behind their wild activities and they can transfer these states, skills and motivations to novel situations where participants can even become symbols (game master = prey at bay).

It might spell good news for wolves in captivity because they could develop methods of sublimating their instinctive/hormonal/physiological/genetic needs into play.

I believe this game is also very important because a part of a wolf’s identity must be that of what this individual’s role is in the pack with respect to providing for the family.

In every pack, there are wolves who initiate the attack, who are the best chasers, who can subdue prey, who can confuse prey, who can chase prey toward others in ambush, who can wait in ambush, who can figure out how to drive prey to strategically beneficial locations etc.

These roles are rooted in individual characters, physical capabilities, experience etc.

They must give the wolves confidence and an awareness of their significance.

Captive wolves cannot achieve such behaviours and they might be suffering a loss of a major part of their identity formation.

If this game is not about competing for food but rather implies strategizing in order to obtain the food for everyone, it might help the IWC individuals to understand what their role and their identity is – as hunters.

For example, in the wild, Rieka would be too small to bring down large prey by jumping and biting into it.

However, she would truly be able to perform these little, confusing sneak attacks (especially, because she is not as easily noticed due to her diminutive size and she can easily stalk up to someone) that could disconcert the prey and that might just push the prey over the edge (surpassing the threshold of anxiety above which the prey is disoriented and runs).

Such ability would certainly endow Rieka with confidence in a wilderness situation.

In a non-related group the confidence that comes with the ability to ‘do one’s job’ might be even more important as these individuals might feel they have to earn for their place in the pack (unlike offspring who have earned their place simply by having been born into their family).

If I am right, it is amazing how these wolves have figured out non-violent ways to ‘hunt prey’.

I will repeat once more that during these games often nobody wins the prize and it is frequently not about the food item itself at all (it can become lost and abandoned in the ruckus).

It might be about the ‘getting of the food’ – the hunting act, the ‘job’ that the wolves must do.

And while it appears that it is a game which includes the haves and the have nots as well as competitors, ultimately, the purpose of this game might be that of involving everyone in the hunt.

(In fact, it might not be merely about getting the ‘prey to run’ but it could also be about everyone trying to ‘lay their tooth’ on the prey which is, symbolically, already captured by the dominant wolf but which has to be subdued collectively.

It might be too socially difficult for the dominant to actually allow the subordinates to bite into the food item and thereby the goal is to just get near enough.)

However, it is also clear that this game is not only about hunting because the favourite strategies by some of these wolves would not quite directly work as viable hunting methods in the wild (groveling or being suddenly playful) (although see below).

But then again, we perceive ‘the getting of the food’ as a single act involving tracking, pursuing and killing it.

Many human cultures (especially, religions) have never believed that the food on our table is the mere result of our physical efforts to attain it and that provisioning has a spiritual aspect to it which is as important or more important.

Namely, the result of the hunt might not depend merely on the act of hunt but also on other qualities that… let us put it this way, make the spirits deem the family worth having its meal.

It could be this consolidation of characters, this subtle recognition of who everyone is and who I am, this involvement and investment on behalf of everyone that earns the wolf family its food.

Perhaps it is the cohesiveness, the engagement, the strong ties, the strong roles in the family that lead to a full stomach, and the hunting itself is merely how the food is brought into its physical existence.

We think of spirituality as something that is separate from the natural world and therefore we assume that animals are not aware of spiritual notions (because these notions demand awareness and we doubt animals have it).

However, even if we do not address the awareness in animals, spirituality has not always been detached from nature and the most ancient forms of spirituality implied that everything had its spirit.

Spirits were a part of the nature and they were manifested in the natural world just like perhaps our emotions or thoughts are manifested in us driving our behaviour, responses etc. (which are physical manifestations of our spirit and which can determine how others can interact with us).

Perhaps these wolves are not mimicking hunt but they are mimicking the spiritual act of provisioning for the family into which many layers of wild contexts are fused to represent the diverse meanings that food acquires in wolf societies.

I wished to also address how the favourite strategies by Caz and Blackstone as well as by Axel and Graysone might represent actual hunting approaches.

For example, the inexperienced individuals in the pack (while Caz and Blackstone will be two year old this year, they have no experience in hunting) might, indeed, mill around creating a general chaos where they are.

This could partly be the result of their confusion and perhaps fright (if the prey is formidable and if the individuals are yet very young).

However, it could also be one of the first (witting or unwitting strategies) as the chaotic movement of the young wolves would confound the prey – they might find themselves unable to exactly determine the size of the group of the attackers, the size of individual attackers and their location at all times (especially, under stress, the prey might feel overwhelmed as if there are a whole many wolves and they are all over the place).

As I have mentioned before, wolves often need to unsettle the prey so that it ran.

Any activity contributing to anxiety (such as not being capable of following the development of events or estimating one’s chances) is beneficial to the hunting party.

Thus, the more ‘submissive’, wriggly and squirmy behaviours could not be as inefficient as one might assume in an actual hunting situation (unless they confound the adults, as well, which they probably do not).

On the other hand, Axel and Grayson quite represent the dominant wolves in a hunting party and such wolves frequently observe the prey without stepping into action (because they no longer need to test every prey individual they have met through actual physical confrontation).

Thus, the sudden change in their attitude (they are willing to prey = they are willing to give it a go, to give a chase) could also unsettle the prey as it would inform them that things are getting serious.

A sudden investment of dominant, experienced wolves in the testing of the prey could send a message to the prey individual(s) that they have already been deemed as vulnerable.

Namely, they must come to a conclusion that there is ‘something wrong with them’ because the wolves were not disinterested in them, as before, and this could cause panic.

Thereby, while the behaviours favoured by these four males are outwardly rather more social in their character, they also represent layers of actual hunting strategies.