Interesting article. Just a few quotes regarding the topic.
According Jean Donaldson regarding the observation of feral dogs in Romania under the dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu:
“Their associations with one another are brief and casual: a couple of dogs may hang out together temporarily and then part company. Dogs are often drawn together by a scarce resource like a food source or estrous female but once this magnet is gone, they go their separate ways…Significant populations of free-ranging domestic dogs also exist in sub-Saharan Africa, South America, India, Mexico, Tasmania (Cook Island Dogs), Hawaii, Bangkok and, in a situation paralleling that of Romania, in
Moscow.”
According to Ian Dunbar:
“…loose, transitory associations.”
Veterinary Behaviorst Amy L. Pike, DVM, DACVB, IAABC-CABC, and Jessey Scheip, LVT, KPA-CTP discusses the dominance theory and how dogs can be dominance in a situation but not as a personality trait.
“No species in the animal kingdom creates dominance hierarchies with another species. However, dogs do create dominance hierarchies among themselves. This fluid relationship is maintained primarily by the deferential dog and not the most assertive. Take, for example, two household dogs each given a rawhide. The two go to their respective corners. One dog finishes first, then approaches the other and takes the second chew for himself. Through body posturing, the dog taking the item indicates that he cares more about it than the other. The second decides that he is comfortable with this arrangement and allows the other dog to take his chew. Altercation avoided. The next day, the second dog might decide he desires the tennis ball more than the first and “tells” the first dog to leave it. Dominance-submission is a relationship that is decided by both parties, and the positions may change depending on the resource at hand.”