Dominance, heirachy.

Seven bones, 8 dogs.

Champa in the playpen just in case anyone is stupid enough to go near him---better safe than sorry and his bite inhibition used to be non existant.

The rest sorted themselves out from the pile on the ground. Etta slid under and did a runner with one, Celt got to choose while the others stood back. Coo (small dog) was outside so missed choosing and took what was left. Bilbo (visitor) not sure where to settle safely although the others were comfy in a 12/12 are he wasn't sure enough of them or confident enough that he could keep it if challenged?

Celt has just gone up to Etta in the corner and made a noise, not really a growl, more a snarl, and now he has her bone and she has one that was lying around---she took that onto the sofa---possibly easier to see another dog approaching from there and more escape routes.

Without Celt and Champa in the mix I think all would be peace and love and I maybe wouldn't think there was heirachy (except for Etta owning everything!).

Interestingly that would be the bitches who were non proactive and fluid according to situation.

rune

I think the reason some people get confused is the word dominance, because that brings to mind some sort of physical suppression.

The most dominant dog in my house has never as far back as I can remember shown any aggression to any of the other dogs, He has even suckled a young pup. But he takes what ever he wants and no one will take it from him, he will often give up his prize voluntarily and then next in line will get it until it becomes anyones.

It is fascinating watching a group of dogs organising themselves & sorting things out between them . Only having 2 dogs I don't get so much opportunity for observation. And on the few occasions (like on holidays) when we have about 8 dogs with us in the same house, we tend to prevent any "sorting things out between them" from happening because the situation is temporary. We just feed our own dogs separately.

Just a few questions:

7 bones, 8 dogs ~ who dipped out?
Were all the bones the same size, type, with about the same amount of meat?
You let your dogs take bones on the sofa ?

When I first had my dogs, Wilma was extremely guardy with bones. She would gather them up, sit next to them or bury them, remain vigilant & not let Barney anywhere near the part of the garden where the bones were. Barney just shrugged & left her to it. I didn't try to remove bones from Wilma, but I could easily call her away from the bones so that I could then remove them, or redistribute them.

I started to give both dogs smaller bones that I knew they would finished in one sitting. Then I introduced larger bones & the big beef hard bones. Over time, & with bones being a regular event, Wilma has completely changed ~ no guarding, sometimes she doesn't bother with them at all, & Barney has been known to slide one out of her mouth without so much as a curled lip from Wilma.

Last one in dipped out---Pip sleeps in the caravan with Tassle! He got a bit of pigs ear instead and then he got a bone when Coo stopped wanting it.

Labs are still at them and Etta now in cage (her choice). Lots of free bones now.

They don't seem to bother about size---all are marrow bones and I will pick them all up in a minute anyway. Champa got what I would think was the best one but Tassles dogs had an hour on them yesterday.

Yes they take bones on the sofa---it is leather and has an undersheet, a large oversheet and two dog beds tucked into it as well. They come on my bed at night as well if they want to! (minus bones!).

I always have them lying around, as they get less attractive they don't bother much with them, just an occassional nibble. Visiting dogs do like them and chewing relieves frustration.

rune

Yep----thats Gabe!

rune

tbh the rules in my house for my dogs and any visiting dogs is that whoever has something keeps it for as long as they want it
I dont tolorate another dog taking something off of them

Mia would attack without warning if there was anything about when I first got her
Now if Ben has his paws on something and she really wants it she will do tricks for him

Personaly I dont see it as dominance - I see it as bullying, if a dog wants something and sucessfully takes it then they are more likely to use that method again
That means that the polite dogs who dont want a fight are constantly punished

Just me, I know lots of people disagree with me - but it works for me

I think it depends on the dogs---and with two it is easier to moniter at all times as well.

Mia had use that as a survival method I would imagine---you stepping in makes you the top dog/leader---whatever you care to call it and she will obey your leadership rules.

rune

More thoughts-----they are coming thick and fast this morning!

Bitch bitch aggression is likely in siblings kept together, happens with other bitches sometimes and is hard if not impossible to sort out.

It doesn't happen if one is submissive and the other much stronger. To sort dog/dog out you castrate the submissive dog.

Thus problems arise when dogs or bitches feel they are of equal ranking.

Comments---other ideas on why it happens?

rune

I'm not so sure ~ interesting, but doesn't take into account learning experiences & makes the assumption that there is a relative "rank" between all dogs over all resources. I can't buy into this theory as there is too much evidence that doesn't fit.

With bitch-bitch aggression I've always understood that, with 2 entire bitches, there was much more likely to be a huge hormonal input into any aggression, & that the scale & ferocity of the attacks would result in an extremely fast & ingrained learning experience. This would mean it would be highly likely that encounters at other times would often result in the aggression experienced in the first aggressive encounter ~ fight or die, basically.

I wasn't aware that bitch-bitch aggression is more likely between siblings kept together. Do you have a source for that? And has the fact that siblings would be likely to come into season at roughly the same time been ruled out as a cause for aggression?

I'm sure most of you will have read or be aware of Semyonova's theory on the social organisation of domestic dogs. It makes interesting reading & gives food for thought. I can understand why postural signalling is better interpreted as "threatening" & "non-threatening" rather than "dominant" or "submissive". I'd love to hear of opposing views to Semyonova's paper.

If you chucked 3 bones down in my 4-dog house one dog would end up with all 3 - Shamus. Because he`s the greediest. Daisy isn`t that fussed about food, Bran doesn`t have the teef required for bones and Razzle doesn`t know what to do with them.
But this doesn`t make Shamus boss in any other way.

Re the terminology: Threatening is still misleading. Shamus postures but that`s out of fear. Daisy is the most likely to follow through with a confrontation but she doesn`t posture. Posturing is the problem word here - maybe confrontation would be better?