# Pack dominance issues



## bkshotton (Mar 19, 2012)

We have two GSDs; one is a seven year old female, the other a two year old male. The female was with us for about five years before we got the male. Both are from the pound, so we don't have any back story on either. The female is very affectionate, good protector, etc. The male, as befits his age, is more energetic and playful, but also affectionate, brave, a good protector, etc. We have had the male about 15 months and everything was great until about a month ago. 

Our problem is one that I believe is basically a dominance issue over which of the two will be the alpha. The female always has been, but the male is starting to make moves into taking over the role. The female is resisting this, demanding more attention and affection from the family, and is finding many ingenious ways to mess with the male. I accepted this as just the transition they will go through; being much larger, younger, and stronger, the male will eventually become the aplha. The trouble is that this competition for aplha status has begun to result in negative behavior. They are both becoming resistant to taking commands that they jumped to obey just a few months ago (they will still obey, but it is not instant, sometimes two or three repetitions are required where one was always enough before); the male and female actually got into a fight over food (this has NEVER happened before), and we have to keep a very close watch on them while they are outside because the female has been caught trying to dig under the property fence. Neither shows any aggression towards the family members and both remain affectionate and protective of the humans in the house. Neither sees the other as a threat to any of the people in the house, but both seem to want exclusive attention, rather than the sort of group affection, games, etc., that has previously seemed perfectly OK to both of them.

Is this all natural? And how long should it take these two to hash it out and establish the new pecking order? Is there anything as owners we can do to speed up or smooth out this process?


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Don't let the male do it. Younger, stronger, doesn't matter.
Female is there first, you protect her top dog status.


----------



## Clyde (Feb 13, 2011)

I think you are looking to far into this. Don't let the dogs control the house you control the house. If there obedience is sliding it is not because of the relationship between the two dogs it is because you are not being consistent in enforcing the rules. Yes there may be things going on between them but that is not an excuse to not enforce your commands. Maybe a second round of obedience classes for both of them. If you have 2 handlers you could even have them in the same class and the trainer could give you suggestions on the issues in the house or do a private lesson at your home.

It sounds like your dogs might be trying to control movement and space in the house. They should learn that you are in control of all resources food, space, access to you etc. So don't think about it so much as how the dogs are hashing it out think about it as to how you need to show them that you are in control. With food if I give food to a dog it is theirs and I enforce this so no dogs bother each other. If they leave their food or chew without finishing it gets put up the other dogs don't get to take it.

I am sure someone will post a good link to a NILF article this will help out a lot also.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Nothing in Life is Free

Mind Games (version 1.0) by M. Shirley Chong

I want to reiterate, too, do not let the male bully your girl.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Your male will ultimately assume top status between the two if they are often together. Its the way of the pack....the sooner it get settled the better the situation will be. You cannot keep the female in the top position over the male....doesn't work that way. Now if you separate them or you are always between them.....maybe, but that's not practical. I just had my 14 month old male take over the top spot from my seven year old female. If I could have prevented it I would have because she was first....doesn't work that way.


----------



## N Smith (Aug 25, 2011)

Ultimately they are both #2. They own nothing, and get no privileges without them being earned.

Get it out of your head that either of them needs to be the "alpha". You are the decision maker and the leader in the house.

The NILF link is a great one, but more importantly is to change the way you think and live with your dogs.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

I don't believe it "has" to work that way. We've protected our female's status as top dog because the house works better that way. 
You can give preferential treatment to the female, don't crate her while male is crated, take her more places, feed her first, etc.

There's more to it than sheer brute strength. The smallest dogs in the household are often "alpha" or the top dog, or whatever, I shared in another thread that a 4lb. dog ruled the roost and bossed around a 130lb. Great Dane puppy!

Your home is what you make it as long as you are in charge ultimately.



> The NILF link is a great one, but more importantly is to change the way you think and live with your dogs.


Exactly. Shrink that boy's britches back down, you are the leader and what you say, goes.


----------



## Clyde (Feb 13, 2011)

I agree that the male will probably be tops in the house amongst the dogs. I don't try to maintain what I perceive should be the hierarchy the animals know that better than I do. But you still need to make sure that you are in control and that the top dog is not running your house. I think in this case there are issues between the dogs but also issues between the dogs and the people.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

cliffson1 said:


> Your male will ultimately assume top status between the two if they are often together. Its the way of the pack....the sooner it get settled the better the situation will be. You cannot keep the female in the top position over the male....doesn't work that way. Now if you separate them or you are always between them.....maybe, but that's not practical. I just had my 14 month old male take over the top spot from my seven year old female. If I could have prevented it I would have because she was first....doesn't work that way.


 
?? The female dogs have always been alpha in my house. It seems like the male dogs don't want it. We started with a female shepherd who was always alpha over our akita male and she ruled the roost for 13 years. When she passed Xena a little 40 lb mix took over and kept my boys in line. The females are just flat meaner, and frankly a heck of a lot more protective.


----------



## kiya (May 3, 2010)

I am the head "B" in our house. I don't think you can control which dog is top dog, that is something the dogs must work out. As much as I tried to influence my dogs status, Lakota is top dog. She is the newest & youngest and most dominant. Luckily the other 2 dogs had no desire to challenge her. I don't take any crap from her when I see her posturing or mounting my other female or resource guarding from them. Size doesn't mater to her, she has gone after my 9yr old male, he's 115lbs and could easily lay her out.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

It is not at all uncommon for the older, wiser dog to remain alpha even when the younger one is bigger and stronger. It is common for the female to be dominant over a larger male.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

cliffson1 said:


> Your male will ultimately assume top status between the two if they are often together. Its the way of the pack....the sooner it get settled the better the situation will be. You cannot keep the female in the top position over the male....doesn't work that way. Now if you separate them or you are always between them.....maybe, but that's not practical. I just had my 14 month old male take over the top spot from my seven year old female. If I could have prevented it I would have because she was first....doesn't work that way.


Exactly. Humans only decide where they themselves are in the pecking order. Not the order of all members of the pack...


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Emoore said:


> It is not at all uncommon for the older, wiser dog to remain alpha even when the younger one is bigger and stronger. It is common for the female to be dominant over a larger male.


This is exactly our observations as well. Couple that with actively protecting the female's status. 
I'd never let a puppy take over a dominant position over a dog whose been here much longer. 

In fact we had to rehab a puppy like this, the owners let him bully and beat up the older dog and it messed up the pup's psyche quite a bit, allowing him to think he was now the "alpha" over everyone. He decided when and where they went for walks, and how long they'd be, how he ate food, even.
Not even remotely cute, or cool! 
The pup was an overweight psychological mess but responded well to "bootcamp" here and got his mental status straightened out. 

This isn't a wolf pack in your front room. You as the leader must take control of the situation and make it work. You do not have to roll over and accept that 'they'll work it out', no, you must take an active role in ensuring the household is peaceful.

To the OP - if you're going to allow the male to do this, you're going to have a household upset forever. The strife will continue unless you take charge.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

hunterisgreat said:


> Exactly. Humans only decide where they themselves are in the pecking order. Not the order of all members of the pack...


Oh yes we do.

We foster dogs all the time. 
We'll get fosters in who think they are going to suddenly up and run the show. It gets shown to them quickly (they lose privileges, no more couch, no more toys, etc.) that they are underlings, and our dogs are "above them" in status merely because they've been here longer. It would not be fair to have some foster dog meander in and be given (or demand) all the things our own dogs had to earn! 

Yes we do have a say in how things are ordered!


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> Oh yes we do.
> 
> We foster dogs all the time.
> We'll get fosters in who think they are going to suddenly up and run the show. It gets shown to them quickly (they lose privileges, no more couch, no more toys, etc.) that they are underlings, and our dogs are "above them" in status merely because they've been here longer. It would not be fair to have some foster dog meander in and be given (or demand) all the things our own dogs had to earn!
> ...


You can correct behavior you don't like, but you don't decide dominance. One will naturally be more dominant, another more submissive. You can stop them from doing things you don't like, but you didn't make that dog any less dominant. Can't fight instincts and innate behaviours


----------



## GSDAlphaMom (Jul 20, 2010)

Emoore said:


> It is not at all uncommon for the older, wiser dog to remain alpha even when the younger one is bigger and stronger. It is common for the female to be dominant over a larger male.


 
Totally agree. I have 2 males and 3 females. Alpha order goes stricly by age. The eldest is a female and not a push dog but everyboy respects her. A male is next and he is next on the totem pole. I don't really have any competition for order, especially between genders.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

My dogs, Jäger, Katya, and Aska, are almost 5, 2.5, and 7.5 respectively. Thats also the order I got them. Jäger is the dominant male, Katya the dominant female over her older, bigger mother Aska. Katya is a very dominate female. Still, she completely submits to Jäger. And everyone submits to me


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

I see what you are saying, and yes, in your case, it would go by age and date added to the household.

And while you're right, you can't change an innate behavior, you can change the dogs' mentality and work with that.

In the OPs case, the female (naturally dominant over a male, all other things being equal) is older (so should retain "top dog" status) and has been there longer (another qualifying factor in who should be "top dog"). So he should protect her status and to not do so and to let the boy think he can be top dog, is only inviting disaster. 

We do run into slightly touchy situations here when we foster a dog older than the rest of the dogs, although my dogs have been here longer. We just don't let our gang bully the foster, but we don't allow the foster to gain upper hand in any way. If it looks like this is going to be an issue, especially one that'll come to blows, we limit that foster's interactions either through isolation (outside only by itself for instance) or more crate time and less family time.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Some older dogs are the strongest dogs and in that case they can retain their position. But once one animal starts repeatedly challenging the top one, it is usually inevitable. When the challenge initially comes part of the top ones job is to place the challenger in a position to not want or think they can be over the top dog. But if they can't do that then the change will take place. Now kenneling or keeping them away from each other has not maintained top spot for the older, only they can do that for themselves. That's why I said "if they stay together", if you separate them at critical times then they are not together and what I said doesn't apply. OP get back with us in a year an let us know.
BTW, OP no disaster took place when my 14 month just took top spot from my seven year old female.....she just doesn't challenge him for things anymore and she can't take anything from him anymore. She fine and he's great too!


----------



## Packen (Sep 14, 2008)

Age does not decide pack leadership in animals, genetics do. Some are born leaders, some are born followers. If 2 believe they are leaders of that subject pack, they will decide who is the top dog real fast.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> But once one animal starts repeatedly challenging the top one, it is usually inevitable.


Under your theory, though, by all rights, at some point your younger dogs will kill the older/sicker/weaker one.
Do you allow that too??


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

msvette2u said:


> Under your theory, though, by all rights, at some point your younger dogs will kill the older/sicker/weaker one.
> Do you allow that too??


I don't think so. A smart older dog will accept his new, lower place in the pack and submit to the younger, stronger, now-dominant dog. No reason at all for the younger dog to kill the older one once s/he has submitted.


----------



## VonKromeHaus (Jun 17, 2009)

I have 3 dogs. The oldest is Hobie who is a 12 year old wolfdog, then came Judge an almost 5 year old GSD and LoLa an almost year old APBT gotten in that order. Out of those 3 and because of attitudes, people automatically assume that Hobie is the alpha and Judge is beneath him then LoLa. It is NOT that way at all. 

I let my dogs work out the pack themselves to a point(I don't allow fighting, period). I don't want a dog to be top when they don't want to be. I don't push anything or reinforce anything regarding structure between the dogs. 

LoLa is the top dog at my house, she took the position from Judge. I had Red another APBT that I lost to cancer last June, She was the top dog before she died, she took the position from Hobie way before Judge came along and Judge never ever challenged her. 

I think allowing the dogs to work things out themselves is the best way as that way, the dog that wants the position has it. I am not forcing anything on any of them, by reinforcing a pack structure based on age and not on the individual dogs and their temperament. Just because a dog is older and has been somewhere longer doesn't mean that they want to be top dog.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Thank You Emoore, I don't have time for drama and exaggeration.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

msvette2u said:


> Oh yes we do.
> 
> We foster dogs all the time.
> We'll get fosters in who think they are going to suddenly up and run the show. It gets shown to them quickly (they lose privileges, no more couch, no more toys, etc.) that they are underlings, and our dogs are "above them" in status merely because they've been here longer. It would not be fair to have some foster dog meander in and be given (or demand) all the things our own dogs had to earn!
> ...


 
How do they act when you are not there? They remember the order that you have declared?

Or maybe you don't ever leave them alone as a pack?


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

We don't leave them out together, not just because of my dogs but the fosters as well. I don't want a free-for-all between them, nor do I want my entire house trashed 
Plus, one day quite a while back we had to be gone the entire day and left a few fosters out back. We came home to an injured dog that needed drains put in. Never again - not on my watch - will that happen. 

As for killing the older dog, yes it has happened, not always but I know it has, even here on this board back when I first joined.

I've also seen dogs attack a dog that's visibly..."weakened" or otherwise suffering (for instance an epileptic attack). Not kill, but that was the direction it was headed.

If we have an older "already the boss" dog, usually others respect it. If one doesn't, they simply get fewer privileges and that usually lets them know that behavior won't work. We do not elevate a dog who is not naturally a leader.

It's funny that we live with 8 dogs full time and have 5-8 fosters at any given time as well and there's little to no bloodshed, huh?



> the order that you have declared?


I didn't "declare it", for the record, not just out of the blue or of my own accord.
I worked with who was higher up the ladder, but I also defended it at times, if a young'un up and decided he or she was going to take that position. That simply wasn't going to happen and I made sure they understood it. If they didn't there'd be ongoing struggles. Those dogs are put up and merely given less privileges (being loose is a privilege) helps reinforce they are _not_ higher on the ladder as the existing alpha.

That is, I observe what's going on and work with it within limits of course.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

msvette2u said:


> We don't leave them out together, not just because of my dogs but the fosters as well. I don't want a free-for-all between them, nor do I want my entire house trashed
> Plus, one day quite a while back we had to be gone the entire day and left a few fosters out back. We came home to an injured dog that needed drains put in. Never again - not on my watch - will that happen.
> 
> As for killing the older dog, yes it has happened, not always but I know it has, even here on this board back when I first joined.
> ...


 
It unfortunately sounds like us humans cannot set or reset the pack order - at least not so the dogs understand; even though an owner *might* be able to enforce something while they are actually physically present with the dogs.

That is of course too bad as it would be handy very often to be able to "train" our pack to accept what we want the leadership to be among the dogs themselves.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Where do you get "reset"? No I don't reset it but I do nix it - which I explained earlier - if a newcomer decides to try to take over, I do not let it. 

Above all, I am their leader or whatever you want to call it, and I can also modify their behaviors while keeping in mind they have big dog aspirations. 

I have a few here uninterested in being any type alpha dog. We have Libby who fancies herself a queen B above all. The dogs respect her and leave her alone. We adopted a GSD puppy. By the fact he is not allowed to harass her in any sort of way, never has been, we enforce that he's under her. Had we not protected her spot, by never allowing her to be harassed, maybe he'd have tried. Who knows?

I just never would have. I don't get that someone would allow a bunch of overtures from a pup to an older dog, I don't care if the puppy has aspirations or not. That's not how it's gonna work. So we leave her out all the time (privilege), she eats first, etc. He's treated like the puppy he is.

Now, if Libby never cared about being the boss of the pack, I could see someone else doing it, but she does, so we allow that and protect that status. I don't know what will happen when she passes away and don't really think about it that much. 
But I know it's possible to squelch, early on, any leadership takeovers. If you just allow them, then sure, whatever will happen will happen.
But I saw a foster Pug (who'd been here a short time) eating Ruger's proverbial lunch the other day and I allowed that. The Pug is older and Ruger's a puppy. To me, not a big deal, well it is, in a small way, since Rugie's been here longer, but the Pug's older and if he wants to boss Ruger around that's okay. However, he then transferred that to "Imma boss the resident Dachshunds too" because he got it in his thick head he could boss them all, and got in a fight with my Tristan (the boss of all the Dachshunds, so he thinks) so that got nipped in the bed real quick.

Studies have shown dog hierarchies are much more fluid and less defined than wolf packs, because we're also involved. The wolf pack studies were done on captives wolves so were considered later (when scientists went "duh!") to be quite inaccurate as well.
It's all - including our own dogs - an artificial setting so we can make of it what we will.

PS. Do you leave all your dogs out together all the time? Some are not put up, for the safety of the house and yard, if not their own?


----------



## bkshotton (Mar 19, 2012)

*Clarification*

I appreciate all of the responses and advice. However, in reading some of them I see that I was not clear in the phrasing of my original post. Of course, as the dog owner, I am the real "alpha" of our little pack, and have always asserted this position. This has been the keystone of all of the training they have had and it was working out just as the training experts assert - we had well-behaved, happy, and obedient dogs. 

The problem appears to be their struggle for who will be the lead dog under my alpha status. The behavior seems to stem from them being distracted by their struggle, not so much one of willful or deliberate disobedience. We have obviously stepped up training to remind them of what they have been taught and what is demanded of them in the way of behavior. 

I was wondering if this is a common experience, and if so, how long it will likely take them to hash out the new status between the two of them.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Do they fight over space? Toys? Food?
You own all those things and have the right to revoke said privileges, such as removing toys, taking back your space (or giving them each a dog bed), and also hand-feeding. 
You need to work on your leadership skills and remind them they are dogs, and what you say, goes.

If dogs here are fighting over a toy, they _all_ lose it, I never remove a toy and give it to the other dog. 
Treats are given in separate areas including crates if necessary and feeding is done in crates.

If one dog is lying on the couch and "guards" the couch from others, the guarder is removed from the couch. ETC.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Buckshotten, you have gotten some good insights from how this will work out.
Good Luck!


----------



## Barb E (Jun 6, 2004)

Packen said:


> Age does not decide pack leadership in animals, genetics do. Some are born leaders, some are born followers.


I have such a hard time explaining this to a friend of mine who just added a puppy to her home. She's sure that her oldest dog will be the "Top Dog" but I have no doubt as this puppy matures that he will be the "top dog"!

I also have no doubt that Kaos will be the top dog in this house


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I agree Packen. Jax is the youngest but by far the most dominant of the three. Banshee is the oldest and we don't allow anyone to 'bully' her but that doesn't mean she will always be the top dog, it just means we protect her. I believe she is still the pack leader as Sierra and Jax don't bother her. Our issue is and always has been between Sierra and Jax. Sierra is fearful and will guard DH so she would attack Jax whenever anyone was near DH (not necessarily a dog) with redirected aggression. Now that Jax is older, she not only fights back but does damage. She's recently started to guard me and has initiated the last three fights.

I don't think that there is always a "pecking order" being established between dogs. Fearful dogs can appear to be trying to be the leader because they are initiating the fights but in fact true leaders don't need to attack to establish their top status. 

I think you need to evaluate your pack and determine if it is a pecking order thing or if you have some resource guarding going on.

just my opinion based on our experience


----------



## Clyde (Feb 13, 2011)

bkshotton said:


> I appreciate all of the responses and advice. However, in reading some of them I see that I was not clear in the phrasing of my original post. Of course, as the dog owner, I am the real "alpha" of our little pack, and have always asserted this position. This has been the keystone of all of the training they have had and it was working out just as the training experts assert - we had well-behaved, happy, and obedient dogs.
> 
> The problem appears to be their struggle for who will be the lead dog under my alpha status. The behavior seems to stem from them being distracted by their struggle, not so much one of willful or deliberate disobedience. We have obviously stepped up training to remind them of what they have been taught and what is demanded of them in the way of behavior.
> 
> I was wondering if this is a common experience, and if so, how long it will likely take them to hash out the new status between the two of them.


In your first post it sounded like in addition to other things the dogs were trying to control access to you. If I had a dog who thought it was their job to control who comes to me for affection or who I can pet then I would think part of the problem was that they do not respect me.


----------



## elisabeth_00117 (May 17, 2009)

I have two GSD's, both intact.

Male is almost 3 years old and female is almost 1 year old.

From the MOMENT Zefra stepped foot in this house, at 12 weeks old, she assumed "top dog" status.

Stark (male) is pretty dominant with other dogs (not aggressive, but definitely very dominant) and so I watch which dogs I allow him to play with. Zefra, coming in I knew was the most dominant of the litter, pushy, overbearing, just extreme in every which way so I knew I might have some issues. Well, Stark allows her to do whatever she wants to him. He will even bare teeth at her when she tries to take something away from him (which she does CONSTANTLY) but she barrels in and does it, and then he submits by letting her take it. Total push over when it comes to her!

I have NEVER stepped in the middle of these two, I watch them carefully in certain situations but they have worked it out themselves and I have never needed to do much. Maybe a "ah ah" when things got too crazy but other than that, they have worked it out wonderfully.

Now, my dogs play with another younger male GSD DAILY, also intact. He and my male have exchanged looks once or twice and Stark has corrected him once or twice as well but so far nothing too bad. I KNOW we are going to have issues with these two because the younger male is now coming into his own and has started to assert his dominance a bit. We allow them to correct each other but are RIGHT there to correct any behaviour we see that WE do not like. We are going to let them work it out as much as they can but we will step in and let them BOTH know that WE are there to maintain the pack when they are out and about NOT them.

If they weren't with each other so much, it would probably be different but they are together every day and travel, train and hang out all the time. They look to each other as just another pack member to be honest, so things are handled a little differently than if they were just play buddies.

I would be letting them work it out, just my opinion. Who is suppose to be top dog will be.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Clyde said:


> In your first post it sounded like in addition to other things the dogs were trying to control access to you. If I had a dog who thought it was their job to control who comes to me for affection or who I can pet then I would think part of the problem was that they do not respect me.


That is resource guarding and doesn't have anything to do with whether the dog respects the person. Resource guarding is a natural instinct for survival. Unfortunately, when it manifests itself in a dog with low confidence it turns into a mess.


----------



## Clyde (Feb 13, 2011)

Jax08 said:


> That is resource guarding and doesn't have anything to do with whether the dog respects the person. Resource guarding is a natural instinct for survival. Unfortunately, when it manifests itself in a dog with low confidence it turns into a mess.


Yes it is resource guarding but it is guarding a resource that the dog has no right to guard in the first place and they must be taught that is not their place. Is not the game all about who has control of the resources? 

Resource guarding of food is a different story but guarding of people, furniture, or space from a person in the house is not about survival.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I don't agree. I don't think dogs think like that. They don't differentiate between guarding food and a person. All resource guarding is about survival in their brains. It's not about the dogs respecting the people. That, imo, is humanizing the dog and how they think.


----------



## Bismarck (Oct 10, 2009)

Jax08 said:


> I don't agree. I don't think dogs think like that. They don't differentiate between guarding food and a person. All resource guarding is about survival in their brains. It's not about the dogs respecting the people. That, imo, is humanizing the dog and how they think.


i don't agree with that line of thought.

we have a dog that will resource guard one person, but when he's walked with anyone else, he's perfectly fine. 
this is a dog i've known and walked very often, the dog likes me and is very happy to see me. when i went and talked to the person who was walking him, this dog resource guarded that person. his survival wasn't in jeopardy, but i think he was afraid of losing his "resource".
the bad part of the deal was, the "resource" is afraid to correct this behavior, as he fears the dog will turn on him.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Bismarck - I think you have read right over my statement that "Resource guarding is a natural instinct for survival". It's been in them for thousands of years. You determined his survival wasn't in jeopardy...how do you know what he was thinking? 
You are applying what you judge in the situation (his survival isn't in jeopardy) and assume he's thinking the same. And how do we even know that they even consider it survival anymore? It's just an instinct that kicks in to guard resources.

He wouldn't guard you as a resource any more than Jax would guard DH as a resource. DH isn't her resource, I am. Same with Sierra. Both dogs like the other person just fine. Sierra and Jax can be together, play...but when one is to close to the resource, all **** can break loose. 

You just said that he was "afraid of losing his resource", which implies that he can be fearful which in turn implies that he has low confidence. Is that correct? Or is this a confident dog with no security issues?

As I said, when it manifests itself in a dog with low confidence it turns into a mess.


----------



## Clyde (Feb 13, 2011)

Jax08 said:


> I don't agree. I don't think dogs think like that. They don't differentiate between guarding food and a person. All resource guarding is about survival in their brains. It's not about the dogs respecting the people. That, imo, is humanizing the dog and how they think.


You don't think your dog knows the difference between food and a person or a couch? In some cases survival might mean to not bother guarding an item. A submissive dog who knows it will lose will give way to another dog who ranks higher. The dog is making the decision to give way. Dogs are much more aware of these things than you are we as the humans are just trying to understand what is going on. You don't think that dogs are aware of a hierarchy and how their actions effect this? 

To think that every action a dog takes has survival at its core in the strict sense is way over simplifying things.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Clyde said:


> Yes it is resource guarding but it is guarding a resource that the dog has no right to guard in the first place and they must be taught that is not their place. Is not the game all about who has control of the resources?
> 
> Resource guarding of food is a different story but guarding of people, furniture, or space from a person in the house is not about survival.


Nor should food guarding be allowed within a family - esp. between dog and people. 

Never would I tolerate a dog who showed the least bit of aggression toward me or any family member when it came to food or toys or anything else. Even resistance to giving it up is never allowed. 

Seems to have worked ok with all manner of the many GSD's we have owned.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Clyde - I think you are missing my point. Resource guarding is resource guarding....the same core thought processes are involved. Whether it's food, people or a toy.

I think dogs are fully aware of hierarchy. Again..think you are missing the point...FEARFUL dogs with low confidence will resource guard and continue to fight regardless of hierarchy.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I stated my point...several times and have other things to do than to argue relentlessly over the same statements.


----------



## Clyde (Feb 13, 2011)

codmaster said:


> Nor should food guarding be allowed within a family - esp. between dog and people.
> 
> Never would I tolerate a dog who showed the least bit of aggression toward me or any family member when it came to food or toys or anything else. Even resistance to giving it up is never allowed.
> 
> Seems to have worked ok with all manner of the many GSD's we have owned.


I know I shouldn't even go here. But dude you just love that topic of food resource guarding don't you Really! You just had to pick out the part that I was trying to leave off to the side. Your a strange one


----------



## Clyde (Feb 13, 2011)

Jax08 said:


> Clyde - I think you are missing my point. Resource guarding is resource guarding....the same core thought processes are involved. Whether it's food, people or a toy.
> 
> I think dogs are fully aware of hierarchy. Again..think you are missing the point...FEARFUL dogs with low confidence will resource guard and continue to fight regardless of hierarchy.
> 
> We'll have to agree to disagree. I stated my point...several times and have other things to do than to argue relentlessly over the same statements.


If you would rather not have a discussion that is fine.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

It didn't seem like a discussion. Your reply seemed a bit snarky to me. If you want a discussion then I think we are agreeing on the same points.

You state..


Clyde said:


> In some cases survival might mean to not bother guarding an item.* A submissive dog who knows it** will lose* ...


That is my point. A fearful dog who resource guards doesn't know that. They aren't necessarily being dominant and may in fact be a submissive dog. Fear is irrational. A confident dog knows there is not point to resource guarding. They don't feel the need to do that. A fearful dog will.

How many confident dogs out there resource guard and consistently pick fights?

When we only had Bandit and Banshee, Banshee was the Queen. Neither picked fights, neither resource guard. Bandit was submissive but he was CONFIDENT. There was no need for him to resource guard. 

Have you ever had a dog that was a resource guarder? Ever had a dog that was not confident?


----------



## Clyde (Feb 13, 2011)

Jax08 said:


> It didn't seem like a discussion. Your reply seemed a bit snarky to me. If you want a discussion then I think we are agreeing on the same points.
> 
> You state..
> 
> ...


Some resource guarding is fear based. Most of the cases I see involving resource guarding food from people I believe are fear based. Some people would disagree but whatever (that is not what this thread is about any ways). 

Dogs that are aggressive to people or other dogs over space, people, furniture etc. I believe this aggression has to do with the hierarchy. In houses where the hierarchy is unstable this type of aggression will be more frequent. The dogs are not sure about their place in the pack so their is anxiety and stress. They are receiving contradictory signals from people about their place in relation to the people in the house but also if the people in the house interfere between the natural hierarchy of two dogs this will also cause conflict and confusion about the hierarchy. The more confusion in the hierarchy whether it is between dogs or people the more likely these competitive aggression behaviours will occur in an attempt to sort things out.

Yes there is a lack in confidence in that the dogs are not confident in their place in the pack. Although this does not mean the dog itself is not a confident dog just that with all the contradictory information it receives about the hierarchy in the house it is not feeling confident in its position and therefore may be more assertive and competitive.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

That makes perfect sense, Clyde. Thank you for that explanation.


----------



## bkshotton (Mar 19, 2012)

Clyde said:


> In your first post it sounded like in addition to other things the dogs were trying to control access to you.


This was indeed the case when the male first started to strive for status via the female, but we got on that right away. I mentioned it as an example of new unacceptable behavior that had cropped up when it had not been previously seen. The situation is a little difficult to describe, because, despite a lifetime of owning dogs for both my wife and I we have never had a situation quite like this. My past dog ownership was a one dog at a time experience, and my wife's was an experience where the dogs were all either related and in a well established familial pack of three or more, or the majority were related and a new breeding female was brought into the pack. Since getting married, we had the one dog (female) for about five years. We then acquired the male (both came from shelters) who was still quite young and puppyish at the time. While the male was in that stage of development and the female was "mothering" him, both responded well to training, and everything was aces for a year or more. 

We had already trained the female very thoroughly as to the expectations of the household and she had responded to training extemely well, being immediately responsive to a whole slew of voice commands and hand signals, as well as just generally behaving as taught/trained at all times, whether under immediate direction or not. Initially, while the male was in that puppyish stage of development the female was a very valuable asset in training the male, we incorporated her into the training as an example of the desired bahavior, to reinforce the training for the new dog. She not only acted as an example, she also actively assisted in the training. We welcomed this, since it seemed a natural role for her due to her personality. We actually had brought a new kitten into the house about two years prior to getting the male GSD and we trained the female to enforce basic house rules on the kitten (we did not believe more could be expected of a cat). The female took to this like a duck to water, treating the kitten as if it were her puppy, and took it a step further by actually training the cat to most of the same behavior patterns as the female had been trained - only to lay on a "pet bed", never to go into the kitchen or bathrooms, respond when called, never get on the furniture, etc., etc. We were both impressed that, with the female GSDs assistance we had a better trained cat than any I had personally seen before. Unfortunately the cat was taken by a hawk (yes, we live out in the country) when about a year and a half old.

Is it possible that this is more a case of a mama dog having a problem with the growing independence and maturity of "her" puppy than it is an actual status struggle? Some psychological response to the loss of her earlier "puppy" makes her oppose the loss of "puppyness" of the maturing male? Or is that just part and parcel of a status struggle as a young dog matures?

As I stated before, both remain affectionate and obedient to us as individuals, and all is as it was before when we deal with each dog one-on-one. It is only when they are together that they do not behave as previously and act as if the presence of the other is a distraction. The stepped-up training is restoring proper order, but it is a higher level of training than they have needed since we initially were socializing and training the male when he was new. 

I was wondering how long this status change takes to play out between the dogs and if there is anything we as owners and trainers can do to accelerate or smooth out the process. Or do we just have to accept that we had a brief, but unusual time of exceptionally "low maintenance" smooth sailing and that the current stricter regimen of training and more frequent reinforcement of the training is just the way it is going to be from now on?


----------



## Clyde (Feb 13, 2011)

It is normal for a puppy once it matures to have a higher status in the pack than its mother (not that that always happens it depends on the individual dogs). I would make sure that you are doing everything you can to make it clear to the dogs that you are at the top to start with. No contradictory behaviour from you. This should help settle things. If the dogs are appropriate with each other it is common for things to get worked out with just lots of scuffles or more mild behaviour (posturing, eye contact etc.). I call it a scuffle lots of noise but they are not actually hurting each other. If the dogs have issues with other types of dog aggression or lacked proper socialization they might not know how to work this out appropriately without hurting each other.

I do reinforce appropriate behaviour. For example if one dog chooses to walk away or ignore I will reward them for this.


----------



## sjones5254 (Dec 16, 2011)

My 11 pound Chi rules my house and he's the second to the youngest. Even to my 90 pound Weim


----------



## bkshotton (Mar 19, 2012)

msvette2u said:


> Under your theory, though, by all rights, at some point your younger dogs will kill the older/sicker/weaker one.
> Do you allow that too??


Come on now, that is a bit silly, don't you think? Domesticated dogs almost exclusively establish status amongst themselves in a non-lethal manner. 

Even though I freely admit it is not accurate in all respects; one may find a great deal of useful knowledge about dog rearing in the notes of those who have studied packs of wolves, coyotes, and wild dogs. In such packs, dominance is always a temporary status, lasting only as long as the alpha can maintain it. When a dog/coyote/wolf falls from alpha status they are not usually killed; they simply accept a lesser status in the pack. This status change can take different forms. Perhaps the easiest is when the alpha is a female and is downgraded to the status of the senior "aunt" and assists in puppy rearing. This allows her to retaint a pseudo-alpha status over new mothers and new puppies without threatening the overall pack heirarchy. In other cases, when a male is demoted from alpha status, he can still assist in the hunt and bring food back to the "table", and thus is still a productive member of the pack. If he accepts the downgrade in status, all is well. If he doesn't, then such genetic tendencies will gradually be removed from the pack's bloodline in favor of tendencies more conducive to cooperative pack behavior.


----------



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

It is very, very normal. I am a strong believer in dominance and submissive in canine packs - wolf and dog - after years of studying wolves and working very closely with dogs, especially in large "play groups" while I was working at a boarding facility. I know a lot of people disagree that dominance exists, but I strongly believe it does.

First and foremost, you need to hold the highest rank in your 'pack' - absolutely. NILIF is an excellent way, as is yielding and obedience training.

Second, those two dogs absolutely must work out their own 'pecking order'. Allow them to test each other (unless of course there will be a fight, I would definitely prevent it and keep both safe) or else they will just be more assertive about it next time. You stopping any dominance and submission rituals will only delay them. I have seen this time and time again.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

bkshotton said:


> Come on now, that is a bit silly, don't you think? Domesticated dogs almost exclusively establish status amongst themselves in a non-lethal manner.


Have you never seen dogs attack an injured or ill dog? Or one having an epileptic seizure? It happens. The animals, in their struggle for top dog position, and if this is allowed to continue unchecked, it can happen.

Within the past year I remember someone coming on here and telling about how their younger dog (or dogs, I forget which) ganged up on and killed a smaller/older dog in the home.

Dogs killing each other can and does happen. Go to the pit bull forum if you don't read about it often enough here. 

Just quite recently, a GSD attacked a senior JRT and killed it. Well, it was so badly injured it later died. 
I do not recall the thread but it's within the past 2 weeks. 

So, bottom line is, you guys can let your dogs "work it out" all you want, but as for me, I like my dogs safe and alive, thanks.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

:hammer:Let's everyone keep their dogs safe in the way they know best!


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

What, are you saying dogs do not ever kill each other?? 

Tell that to the owner of the JRT that had to be put to sleep because it was one huge bite wound.

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/aggression-good-bad-ugly/178358-ugly-fight-my-jack-russell.html

My guess is that they were "working out" pack structure.


----------



## Clyde (Feb 13, 2011)

Not all dogs are mentally sound. There probably are some dogs out there that cannot be socially appropriate in dealing with hierarchy issues. But with normals dogs (dogs with good social skills) I think they will probably best be able to sort things out without human intervention. 
If someone had pack issues and the dogs were often fighting and seriously hurting each other then I would say that those two just might not work out. It would not be worth it for me for those two dogs to live together if it were constant management.

When a dog kills another dog in the house without being there who knows what was going on.

And really a lot of dogs these day are not socially appropriate.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

My senior Golden is the alpha in my 4 dog pack. He is at least 40 lbs lighter than my GSD who is 2.5 yrs. old. My Golden isn't mentally stable 24/7. My Golden will "shoulder" my GSD to establish his dominance. My GSD grumbles, but rarely does a fight break out (both fights were brought on by an outside source). I help my Golden keep his rank by feeding him first. Treating him first. Petting him first (etc.) 

Having said that, when my GSD is 100% engaged in something (like the horses at the fence) the Golden will avoid him. 

When I am present, nobody is allowed to grumble. Nobody is allowed to shove. Nobody is allowed to show me any disrespect. I certainly don't want to be in the middle of a dog fight, and the best way to avoid one is to not allow one to escalate. 

When I first brought my 12 wk old puppy home, I was very careful not to allow the GSD to get too rough with him. "Hondo! Puppy!" Bad mistake. The puppy has decided that Hondo is fair game. Unfair to Hondo. Now I never leave the two unsupervised, and I allow Hondo to correct the puppy when the puppy latches onto Hondo's face. Harsh treatment for the puppy for giving harsh treatment to Hondo. If I attempt to correct the puppy, Hondo will escalate his correction, or Hondo will think I've corrected him and not the puppy (Quit!). 

When it gets too rough, I seperate them. 

The puppy will not engage in any type of play with the Golden. At best he follows him around the yard only.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

@Msvette....I am not saying anything about killing.....never used the word! Anybody can bring up infrequent situations to justify a point. Cars have gone up on sidwalks and hit dogs and killed them....so should we not walk our dogs on sidewalks????? There are tens of thousands of multiple dog homes in America, 99% of them don't use the methods use use probably, and 99% of them have not experienced a killing situation. So whatever they are doing(and there seems to be a majority here that gives you a clue) works out well enough that dog's aren't being killed except in rare situation.....just like the car on sidewalk is rare situation. 
So I'm not telling you what you are doing is wrong, I'm just trying to give practical advice that is being used and has been used for years and years without the extremes you bring up, again except in rare instances. 
I never do anything based on the exception, but rather on the norm.....hey but that's me. Lot more drama in the world these days.!


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Well since we've been doing the same thing for the past 10yrs. and not had issues, I will continue doing things the way we've been doing them. If it isn't broken, don't fix it, eh?
And as for dogs killing each other, yes it's extreme but yes it can happen. If not that, injuries severe enough to cause owners to give up dogs. We just prefer to avoid and prevent those type incidents and injuries. 

So I'll continue to give the advice I give (based on the past 5 yrs. doing rescue, and fostering some 150 dogs a year, making it "work" between them and our own resident dogs), and you give yours and people can decide for themselves which works. 
I am a very firm leader in our home so our dogs respect that; problems are very few and far between.



> When I am present, nobody is allowed to grumble. Nobody is allowed to shove. Nobody is allowed to show me any disrespect. *I certainly don't want to be in the middle of a dog fight, and the best way to avoid one is to not allow one to escalate. *


This is my motto, too


----------



## bkshotton (Mar 19, 2012)

msvette2u said:


> Have you never seen dogs attack an injured or ill dog? Or one having an epileptic seizure? It happens. The animals, in their struggle for top dog position, and if this is allowed to continue unchecked, it can happen.
> 
> Within the past year I remember someone coming on here and telling about how their younger dog (or dogs, I forget which) ganged up on and killed a smaller/older dog in the home.
> 
> ...


----------



## bkshotton (Mar 19, 2012)

Having started this thread with my request for information, I would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to respond. I have gained a great deal of information; particularly the idea that the dogs tendency to wish to monopolize attention from us is a form of resource guarding. The past couple of days we have really cracked down on that and are already seeing positive results. It may be a bit premature, but applying some of the advice I have read here has made me think that this situation is now under control again, and the negative behavior traits I previously described are almost completely absent now. Thanks again, everyone.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> My comment was directed towards the 99% of dogs that can and do resolve status issues with nothing more than stare-downs or minor scuffles, not towards the 1% that cannot seem to do so. To focus on that 1% and make decisions based upon them is like advocating the banning of automobiles based upon the tiny percentage of all drivers who die in car crashes.


Curious where you got those statistics?
BTW In our rescue we do not take dogs who are so violent and antisocial they cannot live with other dogs. Not only is it dangerous here, nobody really wants to adopt dogs like that, so it's tough to foster them.

I base my decisions on how to interact with, and socialize/integrate dogs, on our fairly non-violent group of dogs, which include 6 permanent dogs and 3-8 fosters at any given time (various breeds and sizes involved).


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

@ MSvette...We have all helped the OP and I think that's important....I am certainly not going to question your vast experience and knowledge from doing what you do.....so hopefully the OP will have success.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Oh yes, well, thank you so much Cliffson


----------

