Agression problem between two brothers

[wolfy dog]

Originally Posted by shepherdmom

The one who we didn't neuter right away was a little more assertive

That's what I would have done too, by leaving the more dominant dog intact you make the hierarchy gap between the two wider and more defined and thus clearer for them.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by gagsd

To be "natural" one of the males would be killed or driven away in all likely hood.

Can you give me some research on this subject because all the research I have done, points to the fact that wolves seldom fight (Usually a show of force and aggression is enough to settle rank disputes), and when they do it very rarely ends in a killing (killings sometimes happen when the other wolves engage with the subordinate), the only time a wolf would be driven from the pack, is if he can not accept his new role in the hierarchy, thus a constant threat to the alpha. Lone wolves are a lot less common than fiction makes them out to be.

Originally Posted by wolfy dog

That's what I would have done too, by leaving the more dominant dog intact you make the hierarchy gap between the two wider and more defined and thus clearer for them.

To me this completely makes sense, if I was in this position, I would pick a dog and make it clear to the other dog, that he is above him in the hierarchy, feed him first, let him play with toys first, have the lesser ranked dog castrated. This in my opinion would settle the dispute between these two.

[gagsd]

Originally Posted by Marc

...., is if he can not accept his new role in the hierarchy, thus a constant threat to the alpha..

I am speaking about my two dogs. We (some breeders) breed these dogs for a level of dominance, not for submission. My two Ari and Anik are very close in temperament.
1. I do not think it is fair to "make" one dog become the submissive. (I posted that previously).
2. With dogs bred for strong temperament that are of similar strengths, it is less likely for one dog to "accept his new role."

Of course some males get along. Of course some people can make it work.
The OP is already having issues.
The OP is likely a pretty normal dog owner who does not want to change up their entire living situation.

I can understand and agree with the posters who have recommended rehoming one of the dogs.

[gagsd]

Marc, you made me go look things up
(and yes, dogs are NOT wolves, I know)

.....
Third, in the wild, most wolves disperse from their natal packs and attempt to pair with other dispersed wolves, produce pups, and start their own packs (Rothman and Mech 1979; Fritts and Mech 1981; Messier 1985; Mech 1987; Gese and Mech 1991; Mech et al. 1998). I know of no permanent dispersers that failed to breed if they lived long enough.
Wolves do show considerable variation in dispersal age, distance, direction, and other dispersal behavior (see references above), and conceivably these are related to the intralitter variation discussed above (Fox 1971b; Fox and Andrews 1973). However, unless a maturing pack member inherits a position that allows it to breed with a stepparent in its own pack (Fritts and Mech 1981; Mech and Hertel 1983), sooner or later it will disperse and attempt to breed elsewhere.
Wolf Status and Dominance in Packs -Alpha Status

So far the articles I have read all state that the lower ranking members of a wolf pack eventually leave and start their own pack.....
http://www.wolfweb.com/facts-pack.html

http://www.biokids.umich.edu/critters/Canis_lupus/

[Marc]

Originally Posted by gagsd

I am speaking about my two dogs. We (some breeders) breed these dogs for a level of dominance, not for submission. My two Ari and Anik are very close in temperament.
1. I do not think it is fair to "make" one dog become the submissive. (I posted that previously).
2. With dogs bred for strong temperament that are of similar strengths, it is less likely for one dog to "accept his new role."

Of course some males get along. Of course some people can make it work.
The OP is already having issues.
The OP is likely a pretty normal dog owner who does not want to change up their entire living situation.

I can understand and agree with the posters who have recommended rehoming one of the dogs.

Yes it makes a lot of sense for one of the animals to be rehomed, But I always feel bad for both the owner (especially if they do not want to be rehomed) and for the animal, since it wants to be with its owners. I suppose in a lot of cases, there is no other option, and I agree with that, but personally if I was in that position, I think I would atleast try modifying the hierarchy of the group.

Those links were very informative, I will bookmark them personally, I tend not to differentiate between dogs and wolves, since they differ in genetics by such a small amount, however I get that I dont have a wolf sleeping at my feet lol. And your right, it is less likely for a dog to accept his new role, since he has been bred for dominance, and is of similar physical and mental dispotion of his brother.

It was a theory... a theory with a lot of wholes, its possible it might work, but seems unlikely. But I will say that most wolves will stay with their family for atleast 3 years before starting their own packs, so they must be pretty comfortable with their rank for those 3 years

[carmspack]

"But I always feel bad for both the owner (especially if they do not want to be rehomed) and for the animal, since it wants to be with its owners" and sometimes neither one is really "into it" (as in he's not really in to you) , because the dog is too emotionally invested in the other dog , and the owner is too invested , time and interest , in a job or personal priorities , so the dogs sort of raise each other, become very doggy. If the dog is not removed he may never fully develop that bond with a person .

[MaggieRoseLee]

Just so you realize you are not alone and in a fairly common situation (reason why most responsible breeders never consider homing two pups to the same home). For a heads up and more info just click ---> Should I get TWO puppies/dogs at once?

[Freestep]

Originally Posted by Marc

Yes it makes a lot of sense for one of the animals to be rehomed, But I always feel bad for both the owner (especially if they do not want to be rehomed) and for the animal, since it wants to be with its owners.

But an animal can form new bonds in an environment that is better suited to its overall happiness and well-being.

I do feel sympathy for the owner, as there will be an emotional attachment to both dogs, and choosing one over the other has to be very difficult. But I don't feel bad for the dogs--once each is in a separate household with different owners, they will no longer have the stress and strife that causes them to fight, and will no doubt be happier dogs in the long run.

In my opinion, the decision on which one to keep should be based on logical reasoning. Relying on emotions to make a decision is always fraught, and sometimes so difficult that it comes down to essentially flipping a coin, because you simply cannot make the decision.

Which dog is better suited to your family and lifestyle? Which one would be more adoptable? Which one would adapt better to a new home? These are the questions that should be considered.

[shepherdmom]

Originally Posted by carmspack

"But I always feel bad for both the owner (especially if they do not want to be rehomed) and for the animal, since it wants to be with its owners" and sometimes neither one is really "into it" (as in he's not really in to you) , because the dog is too emotionally invested in the other dog , and the owner is too invested , time and interest , in a job or personal priorities , so the dogs sort of raise each other, become very doggy. If the dog is not removed he may never fully develop that bond with a person .

?? We've had up to 5 dogs at the same time, they all have had their person. They have had to share of course and some are more bonded to us than others, some like spending time with the other dogs. They all are safe, loved, vetted and well cared for. I don't feel like any are missing out on anything.

[Freestep]

Originally Posted by shepherdmom

?? We've had up to 5 dogs at the same time, they all have had their person. They have had to share of course and some are more bonded to us than others, some like spending time with the other dogs. They all are safe, loved, vetted and well cared for. I don't feel like any are missing out on anything.

It's not that they're necessarily "missing out" on anything. If your dog never leaves the property, doesn't bother anyone, and has plenty of room to exercise, is fed and safe and vetted, there's nothing wrong with a dog being "doggy" and not particularly bonded to any human. In fact, some dogs work better when they are not too bonded to humans (Livestock Guardians, etc).

But some of us want more than that from our dogs, we want a stronger bond, a dog we know will trust and respect us. A dog we can take anywhere, anytime, and we know it will behave itself. To say nothing of the dogs that have real-life jobs like SAR, Law Enforcement, guide work, etc. That takes work, and if there is little to no bond between the dog and the person, it takes a lot MORE work, if it works at all.

In fact I remember reading about one of the guide-dog organizations, early on in their experimental raising and training of guide dog puppies. Pups that were raised with another dog, either their littermate, parent, or other dog close in age, consistently failed the guide tests. They simply didn't care about humans enough to work for them.

If you don't need or expect that from a dog, then you can get away with letting them be more dog-oriented than human-oriented.