Pack Order

[Vehs]

(I'll pop this here, but it might be more appropriate in training..)

Atm we have a 13 yr old female Dachie x (until the end of the year when her family returns from a posting) and a 8 year old male Maltese x. They get on really well and wrestle, play tug and hump each other without any drama.

We have a rescue dog on trial atm - 4yr old female Shih Tzu x and it seems she wants to be top dog (after the humans), she's only been here two nights and I'm feeding her last and paying attention to her last. In the dog dynamics she seems to be calling the shots - should we let her be top dog or try and keep our 'age' order?

My husband thinks that the Maltese is a little worried and put out - he is usually bossy to any guest dogs that we have and likes to keep dogs away from his special toys but he has let the new girl play with all his toys.

There hasn't been any fighting, but there hasn't been much playing together as the new girl makes a snotty growl noise when she plays (we saw this in her foster home too, but the other dogs knew what was going on) and it's confusing our two so they just walk away from her.

They are happy to sit in close proximity (such as in the car) and will chase after toys together (new girl mostly wins) and eat treats together so maybe this isn't too big a deal.

[Casima]

I'm not sure it is possible to really decide on a pack order when you have a dog who is naturally dominant or submissive in the mix, there is only so much you can do by choosing who gets attention or food first, trying too hard may add in more friction rather than help make peace. However I have had huge success in setting some rules on what isn't acceptable in my dog/dog interactions, to a point my dogs don't really display a noticible pack order. My rules are something like this - no resource guarding, no food stealing, no obnoxious behaviour like humping, I choose which dog I am patting or playing with and the others shouldn't push in. I do feed them in age order, mainly because I feed them together and if it is the same order everytime there is no confusion on whos food it is. If I am giving out treats or table scraps, they go to "whoever is being best behaved" which seems to do a pretty good job of removing any friction and obsessing over the food and instead focus on "being good". I also don't really leave toys around, mainly because a few here destroy them, but also the border collies can become a little too obsessed and I prefer to encourage them to settle while in the house and play when we go outside or walk or train. When I get a new dog, I don't leave them unsupervised with the others until I am comfortable that they wont break my "rules" even when I am not there, some new ones are no problem, others take time.

Your dogs will probably play more with the new one once they are used to her and her quirks.

[RuralPug]

Provided that every dog put the humans in the household first, I don't interfere too much as they sort out it between themselves unless I see obvious bullying (yes, it happens with dogs), or any attempt at resource guarding, in which case it is my job to separate and supervise and rehabilitate until the one creating problems has become secure enough and no longer exhibits that behaviour. Sometimes they will be adopted out to a single pet home before rehab is complete if I think it appropriate.

Occasionally I will find a pair of dogs, especially two bitches, that are just plain incompatible and then I will have to trade one for another foster.

[Wobbly]

That whole wolf pack model base "Dominance theory" of dog behaviour that holds there is an alpha dog that the other dogs are submissive to is pretty thoroughly discredited. A social structure develops in any animals that live in groups. But it's mutable and unlikely to be impacted by who you feed first or any measures like that. Which dog prevails in what situation can be very fluid and may well swap around a lot.

Think of it more like a family group. They're dogs and you're human so it's not a perfect analogy, primates and canines have different instincts, but it's the best analogy. You, controller of resources and and primary caregiver have 2 dependents who know each other well, have long established boundaries, trust and the nuances of their relationship are long established. They are their own little clique. Enter the interloper, ignorant of this clique's customs, the clique will be a little standoffish when she is inevitably on occasion not displaying what they regard as appropriate social norms. She, like any newcomer trying to adapt is probably a bit anxious about the new environment, new social dynamics to learn. Being a little insecure she might be a bit more strident than she needs to about acquiring and keeping resources. Aggression is usually based in fear or insecurity, not always, but very often.

The wolf pack model really does dogs a disservice in this area - so many anxious, defensive, fearful dogs labelled "dominant" or "alpha wannabees" when really they're defensive because they're insecure, anxious or afraid. The wolf pack model is so persistent because it was the received wisdom for so long, it got repeated so often we all thought it was true. I remember buying into it as utterly as everyone else. My dog's behaviour made so much more sense when I realised "dominance theory" is very far off the mark in most aspects. It's probably more accurate to consider your household as a blended family, comprising two species, where the canines are the dependents and the humans the primary caregivers.

In respect to resources, the dogs' interaction is normally aimed at reducing the chance of violence. If one dog really wants something, and another doesn't care so much, the dog who cares gets the resource. So 1 dog may get favoured toys, another favoured sleeping spots. Sometimes there's contention for a resource (food can be contentious), the more confrontation avoidant dogs will back down (a healthy hierarchy - noone gets hurt). It doesn't mean the more confrontational winner who gets that resource is an "alpha", she just wanted that thing more and the other decided it wasn't worth his while to back up his claim. In other situations he'll take precedence, he may veto her joining some social interactions. None of it's bad so long as there are no fights or bullying.

It really doesn't matter what order you feed them in, or who goes through doors first or whatever else is supposed to propel one particular dog to "alpha status", you only set up a hierarchy for that specific situation - the chosen dog gets fed first, goes through doors the door first. But that won't change his standing in any other context apart from being fed by you and going through doors in your presence. Hierarchy is pretty fluid, dogs are opportunists, they'll take what they can get away with mostly.

If you see no risk of altercation, no aggression, no bullying, I wouldn't worry. Separate if you think squabbles or violence might occur, you don't want any grudges developing. Keep an eye out for stiff body language, that slow ominous tail wag, tense faces etc (growling in play can be normal, especially tug games, look at the context and other acompanying body language to assess).

If it's all peaceful and relaxed, open mouthed, you're good. Really it sounds fine, new dog is settling in, needs to learn the ropes, they just have to get to know eachother, and learn the accommodations they need to make for one another. They play together well with balls, you're pretty much there - thats a high excitement volatile situation, if they handle each other well there you're good I'd say. It sounds like they're all well balanced and emotionally healthy and there's no bullying or violence, so each dog's strengths and preferences will dictate the fluid, changing hierarchies that makes the most sense for them in different contexts.

Here's a reasonable enough treatment of why dominance theory isn't really valid.

http://www.apbc.org.uk/articles/why-wont-dominance-die

Edited September 1, 2015 by Wobbly

[Christina]

In respect to resources, the dogs' interaction is normally aimed at reducing the chance of violence. If one dog really wants something, and another doesn't care so much, the dog who cares gets the resource. So 1 dog may get favoured toys, another favoured sleeping spots. Sometimes there's contention for a resource (food can be contentious), the more confrontation avoidant dogs will back down (a healthy hierarchy - noone gets hurt). It doesn't mean the more confrontational winner who gets that resource is an "alpha", she just wanted that thing more and the other decided it wasn't worth his while to back up his claim. In other situations he'll take precedence, he may veto her joining some social interactions. None of it's bad so long as there are no fights or bullying.

It really doesn't matter what order you feed them in, or who goes through doors first or whatever else is supposed to propel one particular dog to "alpha status", you only set up a hierarchy for that specific situation - the chosen dog gets fed first, goes through doors the door first. But that won't change his standing in any other context apart from being fed by you and going through doors in your presence. Hierarchy is pretty fluid, dogs are opportunists, they'll take what they can get away with mostly.

If you see no risk of altercation, no aggression, no bullying, I wouldn't worry. Separate if you think squabbles or violence might occur

After about 20 years of keeping a multiple dog household, usually around 5 dogs, I find the above to be very accurate.

When I go out I never leave a new dog or puppy alone with other adult dogs for about the first 3 months even if they seem to get along well.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Christina

[Ci]

You can't really expect dogs to understand your order of their pack when it is not how they see it. That's how problems start.

They will have their own order and it doesn't really matter where anyone is as the leader is the one keeps the peace.

With you as pack leader, they look to you for direction so if you are benevolent in how you deal with them all, that will help to keep the peace and calm.

I agree with leaving them separate if you can't supervise until you are sure they are OK.

I always do with any newbie too.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Ci

[Vehs]

Thanks Wobbly - that is reassuring, I didn't want the humans to make anything worse.