that woul;d not be a correct assesment you can not call SCALIGER dominante at least in regard to bone when he is denied access to them that is a submisive behavior. In this regard you have what is typical in dog social setting certian thing are more importat to some dogs than other the other dog knows this as well and they work out a situation in which maximize the happiness of both . Trying to say one dog is the dominiate in a ridged pack hierarchy does not work. If that were the case Scaliger should control the couch and the bones and any other desired resource which is obvious not the case. Recent studies have all come to the same conclusion domestic dogs do not form packs or hierarchies.Scaliger is the dominant of the two
Dominance in domestic dogs useful construct or bad habit?
The term ‘‘dominance’’ is widely used in the academic and popular literature on the behavior
of domestic dogs, especially in the context of aggression. Although dominance is correctly a property
of relationships, it has been erroneously used to describe a supposed trait of individual dogs, even
though there is little evidence that such a trait exists. When used correctly to describe a relationship
between 2 individuals, it tends to be misapplied as a motivation for social interactions, rather than simply a quality of that relationship.
In the present study of a freely interacting group of neutered male domestic dogs, pairwise relationships were evident, but no overall hierarchy could be detected. Since there seems to be little empirical basis for wolf-type dominance hierarchies in dogs, the authors have examined alternative constructs. Parker’s Resource Holding Potential (RHP) appears to be less useful when applied to domestic dogs than to other species, although it has the advantage of incorporating the concept of subjective resource value (V) as a factor influencing whether or not conflicts are escalated. The authors propose that associative learning, combined with V, can provide more parsimonious explanations for agonistic behavior in dogs than can the traditional concept of dominance.
I would ask what damage occurs. I here no mention of any damage so can only assume there is none. If the intent was to cause harm rest assure it would have occured.he'll violently grab him and thrash
I highly suggest reading the following articles then come back if you still think there is a problem.
WHY NOT TAKE CANDY FROM A BABY? (If he lets you!)
Examines manipulation as part of social life, and the dog's need for clear boundaries & leadership.
Dogs Use Non-Aggressive Fighting to Resolve Conflicts
does anything that looks like aggression between dogs immediately call for intervention?
Because we live with multiple dogs, study dog behavior and work professionally with aggressive dogs, we think a lot about canine aggression. Some dog interactions clearly qualify as aggressive — for example, a dog with a history of initiating unprovoked attacks and inflicting damaging bites is clearly aggressive, and letting her interact with other dogs is dangerous. No one would disagree about this. However, what about cases where teeth are f lashing, spit is flying and the growling is deafening, but in the end, neither dog is the worse for wear? This is a gray area that is so very interesting precisely because it’s often not clear-cut. Are these instances of aggression?
The answer depends upon whom you ask. Even among behavioral scientists, the term “aggression” can have so many meanings that, in effect, it has lost its meaning. For example, behaviorists might use the word “aggressive” not only to describe a dog who has killed another dog but also to describe a dog who growls or snarls at a dog who is trying to take his bone. The motivations and emotions are clearly very different in these two examples. In the first case, the dog intended to do harm and did, but in the second case, the dog was likely just communicating his displeasure. Using the same word to describe two completely different scenarios can affect how we think about and respond to a wide variety of dog-dog interactions.
Perhaps a more useful term to describe growling at a potential bone thief or the interaction between Denny and Meadow is “agonistic behavior.” Ethologists, who often use this term when studying nonhuman animals, define agonistic behaviors as those that occur between individuals of a particular species in conf lict situations. Examples of agonistic behaviors in dogs include threats like muzzle-puckering and growling; submissive behaviors like crouching, lowering the head and tucking the tail; offensive behaviors like lunging and snapping; defensive behaviors like retracting the commissure (lips) while showing the teeth; and attacking behaviors like biting. With the exception of biting that results in punctures or tears, none of these behaviors necessarily indicates intent to do harm. They simply reveal emotion (e.g., anger or fear), communicate intention (e.g., to maintain control of a resource or to avoid an interaction) or function as a normal part of play fighting (e.g., growling, snapping or inhibited biting). To determine if an interaction meets the criteria for “agonistic behavior,” an observer must focus on an objective description of the communicative patterns displayed rather than automatically jumping to judgments associated with the use of the term “aggression.”[/quiote]
So from what you describe is you have a problem with the way the dogs are resolving conflicts in a perfectly natural doggy manor that does not envolve either get hurt. The first question to ask is it the dogs behavior you need to change or your perception and reaction to it?
If you still want to change the dog behavior in regard to resource guarding with each other I would suggest MINE! - A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO RESOURCE GUARDING IN DOGS and for a fair review Click here
While most people are only concerened when the dog resuorce guard in relationship to a human the same principals can be applied to dog v dog resource guarding.
From a practical stand point it is far easier to modify your own behavior and control the access dogs have to resources they guard. If you practice management techniques in which the dog does not have access to things that it guards the guarding behavior ceases. Bones for instance either 1. don't give the dogs bones.
2. Give each dog a bone and pick both up when the dogs are finished.
3. don't allow Scaliger close proximity to Pierre when he has a bone in give bone ony in crates seperate rooms etc.
If Scaliger is resource guarding the couch why is he allowed on the couch?
If the dogs are not nuetered, nuetering may emphysis on may no guarantees deminish tensions between the two as the level of sex hormones drop.