Wolves No. 11, 12, and 13 undoubtedly were members of the same pack.
This conclusion is based on the fact that they did not fight when placed
together in captivity, that they freely intermixed while penned, that
No. 11 and No. 12 copulated, and that all three wolves generally
traveled as a unit after their release. No. 11 and No. 12 were always
located together from a few days after their release until the death of
No. 12. Temporary splitting, as with No. 13 is a normal occurrence in
wild wolf packs (Mech 1966).
The identity of Wolf No. 10 remains unknown. She was captured 7.5 miles
(12.1 km) away from the other three, and in captivity she behaved
differently from them, remaining more to herself but intermingling with
the others occasionally, with no signs of aggression. The face licking
of No. 10 by No. 11 could be interpreted as a sign of patronizing
intimacy as an adult might treat a subordinate offspring. The teeth of
Wolf No. 10 had very little wear, indicating that she probably was less
than 3-years old, whereas the teeth of No. 11 were blunt from wear. The
tendency for No. 10 to withdraw from the others and from human beings
indicated that she probably was a low-ranking or subordinate animal, a
peripheral member of the pack (Woolpy 1968), or even a lone wolf
currently dispersing from the pack (Mech 1973).
The separation of No. 10 from the others upon release does not
necessarily mean that she was not a member of the pack. No. 10's radio
collar was replaced just before she was released. The handling without
sedation could have frightened her enough that she ran some distance
before the others were even released. The fact that No. 10 returned to
within a half mile (0.8 km) of the release pen on March 20 and to within
less than 100 feet (30.5 m) on April 18 may indicate she was seeking the
other wolves. However, she may also just have used the release pen as a
reference point in a generally unfamiliar area, or may have been
attracted by the remains of carcasses left there.