Talk:Presa Canario/Archive 1

Removal of copyright notice
I've removed the GFDL copyright notice at the bottom of the article as all articles are licensed under GFDL, and editors may dual-license (or release into the public domain) their edits seperately by stating so on their User page. Also, the article could do with an infobox, and some general cleanup so I've added the wikify tag too. TheJC TalkContributions 23:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

New Photos
I`ve added better picures and tried to "wikify" the page as I understand it.I dont know the computer like I know the dogs. David June 26,2006
 * Looks good. :) TheJC TalkContributions 18:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Retagged
I have retagged this article with a wikify and cleanup tag as at passing glance, it's too hard for anyone to read.

Please use headings, bullet points, and other formatting where possible. KC9CQJ 00:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
I've tagged the "Temperament" section with an NPOV tag because it's written very much from the point of view of defending the breed against charges of being aggressive. This is especially true of the last bit about the Diane Whipple case, which was sitting at the end of the article before I moved it to the temperament section. I don't know enough about that case or the breed in general to clean this up myself, but at the moment it sounds very much like Wikipedia is saying "Really, they're not so bad!", which is hardly a neutral point-of-view. User:Angr 09:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There, I've made an edit to the "temperament" section that I feel is a significant improvement in terms of NPOV. I would like some consensus before I remove the NPOV tag. Thus, comstructive comments and criticism would be appreciated. It should be noted that I'm not familier with the breed, though I did research from reliable sources. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  22:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The temperament edits that were made are very inaccurate. The original form was the most correct and came from a breeder who has ten-years experience with the breed and has seen hundreds of specimens within the U.S. and in the Canary Islands and Spain. To characterize the Presa Canario as agressive is a misrepresentation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.112.41.154 (talk • contribs).


 * Well, I dislike saying this: my edit was inaccurate. Sorry it took me so long to reply, I've been avoiding the admission that I was wrong. However, in the spirit of civility I feel it necessary to "confess". The Presa certainly isn't especially friendly, and your edit seems to defend it. However, since some other editors have come in there has been improvement. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  22:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
I have tagged this article because the information about human attacks is being removed repeatedly by PdPC breeders. This information should be addressed at least briefly. Wachholder0 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is it that there is no mention of the 6 week old baby who was killed by the pomeranian on its breed page? If this is indeed just an article to educate the public about all aspects of the breed it describes, then I would expect to find listings of all attacks against people on every breed this activity pertains to. So far, other than a casual mention on one page, I have not found that to be the case.


 * I agree that it is important that people understand this is not a breed for everyone and there are problems that can arise by the improper raising, training and socializing of this and all breeds like it, I think it is equally important that this one breed not be singled out and made to be some evil monster that kills for no reason or the joy of killing.Presa Truth 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. Perhaps your comments could be the basis of the necessary section? Wachholder0 04:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the training section gives enough information for the average reader to be concerned and/or warned about the strength and dominance this breed can portray.Presa Truth 10:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Bias on Either Side should be avoided, its all a POV
Once again someone has decided to put up the two events (Attacks Against People) that put this breed into notoriety. Until and unless we see ALL breeds have their attacks listed in grand fashion for all to gawk over, I believe this section will cause a problem for those of us looking to present the goods and bads in a nuetral fashion. Presa Truth 02:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The really frustrating thing is that someone can just set up a bot to revert to previous changes and not have to come to discuss it with the rest of us who are having a conversation about the very problem. If there is no discussion, how can there ever be a resolution? Presa Truth 06:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The facts surrounding the attacks are not POV
If you want to research every other dog attack on humans and insert that info into each of their own respective articles, go ahead. Simply reporting the two incidents involving Presa Canarios in the presa canario article is perfectly legitimate and does not represent a point of view. If somebody were to say "...therefore presa canarios are killers..." then that would be POV. Nobody is doing that. I don't understand what you are doing. It's more than a little bit weird. Are you OK? Please do not change that section in the article. --AStanhope 13:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Presa Truth is a PPC breeder and has been on a mission to redact this material for months now. Wachholder0 18:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I am not a PPC breeder I am just an enthusiast who has been around 1000s of this breed. This issue was solved some time ago and the NPOV section tag was removed. It was you who came here making changes that stirred it all back up.


 * I looked around at other breed sites and since I dont see your name listing attacks of other breeds, I think its you on a mission and not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Presa_Truth (talk • contribs) 02:29, 20 February 2007

Presatruth
This user Presa_Truth keep deleting any link to articles about the breed directed to elpresa.com, why? Also the link to the forum was removed once again. Someone should fix the problem and let the people chooose on which sites to be informed about the breed. I would like to understand why this censorship is permitted on wikipedia. The articles on elpresa.com and its forum are appreciated from breed entusiasths from all over the world, this behaviour of this user is unserious. If he has something against elpresa.com it does not give him the right to sistematically remove any link pointing to that community!

Becerillo 21:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Becerillo

Whipple Mauling
Shouldn't there be some mention of the Diane Whipple case? Asarelah 11:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, at least a "see also."Wachholder0 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there needs to be a mention of the Whipple Mauling. It is the most high profile dog attack in the last decade, possibly. It is relatively rare that dogs kill adults with their owners present. Jhhays 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dog attack fatality statistics
The attacks against people section of the article must stay. It is both well sourced and entirely relevant. There is no POV problem because it simply states the facts. It does not attempt to paint Presa Canarios as being vicious. This woman died on this date due to a Presa Canario attack. This other woman died on this other date from same. Whipple is linked to her own article in the Wikipedia. The other is sourced at a real newspaper. We could add several additional legitimate sources for each death. It is unnecessary to do so.

On average there are less than 10 fatal dog attacks on humans per year in the United States. (Google it - there are tons and tons of stats out there). '''DOGS ATTACKING AND KILLING HUMAN BEINGS IN THE UNITED STATES IS AN EXTREMELY RARE OCCURRENCE. TWO SUCH ATTACKS IN THE PAST 6 YEARS OCCURRED WITH PRESA CANARIOS. IN OTHER WORDS, APPX 3% OF ALL DOG ATTACK FATALITIES IN THE US IN THE 21ST CENTURY TO DATE INVOLVED PRESA CANARIOS. IT IS NOT POV TO INCLUDE THIS INFORMATION. IT IS WHAT IT IS.'''

The act of removing the reference to the attack deaths is in of itself POV. It has also been clear from some of the comments by the people doing the removing that they have ECONOMIC INTERESTS in scrubbing the article of allegations of violent behavior by the dogs. Yes - Presa Canario breeders are coming here to tune up this article. One frequent whitewasher goes by the Orwellian name "Presa Truth."

When you're editing Wikipedia articles to try to make your business more successful, you really need to take a look at yourself in the mirror and ask if what you're doing is the right thing. I think you know the answer already. --AStanhope 03:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to mention this, then you should bring up all fatalities involved with every breed. The two dogs involved in the Whipple mauling where cross bred, they were English Mastiff x Presa at best.
 * You or anybody else are more than welcome to do research on fatal dog attacks in the US by breed and add the relevant information to every breed's article - or even create an article that deals exclusively with US Fatal Dog Attacks. The absence or presence of that sort of information in other articles has no bearing whatsoever on what should or shouldn't be included in this article.  What counts here is that these attacks (A) happened, are (B) verifiable with (C) sources cited and (D) the information is presented without a POV.  I've written this here in Talk time and time again...  Nobody is stating that these are savage, wild violent dogs.  To do so would be to present the information with a POV.  Instead we're simply stating the facts in neutral, encyclopedic language.  Nobody reading this article is leaving with the idea that all presa canarios are vicious killers.  --AStanhope 07:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is _precisely_ what you're communicating when you insist on including a section titled "Attacks on People" with a bulleted list of all the gory details included - it's sensationalism, plain and simple - a sensationalist meme and a sensationalist agenda which vilifies the breed and turns these dogs into some sort of comic book monsters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frangible (talk • contribs).


 * Oh, and one more thing - since, by your assertion, that if it's reported in the newspaper, it must be accurate, the Advocate confirms that they were mastiff mixes: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid45596.asp


 * So, you lose - but thanks for playing Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frangible (talk • contribs).

You are very much sensationalizing this breed when you mention these attacks. IF you wish to discuss them, then create a separate topic on Dog fatalities as you have said. Other wise you must list every fatal dog mauling or serious attack for EVERY breed in order to be fair. There is a very strong movement by animal rights groups such as PETA and the HSUS to have these type of dogs exterminated. The Breed Specific Legislation is aimed at making bull breed dogs illegal to own. --PresaDog 16:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC) PresaDog

Article protected
I don't know who is wrong or right here, nor do I have any interest. I see one editor who's grossly overstepped WP:3RR over the last few days (almost every day!) and another probably indulging in sock-puppetry. Either way, the edit-war ends here. It's time to discuss the issues and come to some sort of compromise. Either that or ask for dispute resolution or mediation - A l is o n  ☺ 06:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and my "issue"
Would one of the admins here please take a moment to assure the audience that I, indeed, have not been working on this article using a sockpuppet? I am a seasoned, enthusiastic Wikipedia editor with 3500+ edits under my belt. I have been punished for vandalism on several occasions. I have been called out and even punished for a lack of civility at times. I am by no means ashamed of my work or my positions with regards to the articles I have been involved with here. If I'm willing to do penance for calling another editor a "douche" then surely I should be unafraid to edit this article as I see fit with my own account only.

I don't have any "issue" with these dogs. I actually think that they are quite handsome. I suffer terribly from allergies which prevents me from being a dog owner, however if I could have dogs I might even consider a Presa de Canario. I am not afraid of Presa Canarios and I am not of the opinion that they are prone towards attacking humans.

I read an article about one of the fatal maulings and, as is my habit, wanted to find out more about the breed here on my trusty Wikipedia. I read and enjoyed the article which at the time did not include either of the mauling stories. As the mauling events at hand were notable and reported widely in national news, I added them to the article. This was done without emotion or malice. It was a simple matter of improving the Wikipedia - something that I've felt proud about doing just about every day for almost three years - on topics that are dear to my heart as well as topics with which I have no personal connection.

The opposition stated here against including these news items in the article violates many of the principles we adhere to with the Wikipedia. Emotion, POV, Original Research... It is unfortunate that these news stories hurt the feelings of the editors here who love their dogs. If this were a biographical article I might even accept "feelings being hurt" as a legitimate reason to exclude relevant news. We're talking generally about a breed of dog here and the feelings of several of those dogs' owners being hurt should not be taken into consideration here.

The Ford Motor Company sold millions of Pintos and only a handful of people were killed due to the poor gas tank position design, yet we include those deaths in the Ford Pinto article. The Fung Wah Chinatown bus company has been running 20 buses between Boston and New York Chinatown every hour on the hour for almost 10 years. In all of that time they've had five accidents none of which caused any fatalities or serious injuries. We list all five of those accidents here. The Ford Explorer article discusses the Firestone tire blowout concern and recall even though no deaths have been attributed to it. The Jack in the Box article talks about the e. ecoli issue and raises concerns about food safety there yet nobody died. The article about Tasers talks about controversy due to safety issues surrounding it. Fen-Phen... Mattel...  Purina...  Tylenol...  Roller coasters...  We could go on forever here about products and companies and services and industries that have had tiny incidences of something negative happening and those incidences are duly recorded in their Wikipedia articles.

I trust that the consensus here will be to do the right thing and continue to include the references to these well-reported news stories in the article. This is, it is clear, how it should be. --AStanhope 00:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing Edit War
Re the ongoing edit war (I looked over the history and this has being going on for a year!), I think as Alison has suggested that there needs to be a robust discussion so some sort of compromise can be achieved. I don't have anything to do with the breed nor have I owned a Presa and only noticed this page after seeing one on youtube doing schutzhund. I researched (briefly) over the last few days and tried to rewrite the disputed section leaving a neutralish paragraph with references however it seems this has not satisfied everyone and edit warring continued. The way I see it now is that some people want to have absolutely no mention of the attacks and others want it in the article. My position tends to be that the incident and court case made worldwide news and is therefore notable enough to be included in the article of the breed that caused it. The fact that it was mixed breed with owners who were idiots suggests we shouldn't unnecessary taint the breed by sensationalizing it or stating all the gory details. The other death in Florida seemed to be a pure breed though and again was a significant news story. Perhaps this pages editors could put forward some ideas for a succinct paragraph on this talk page and we could go from there or else we will have to send it to dispute resolution or mediation and live with their verdict. Hopefully we can figure something out and put an end to this. - Mr Bungle | talk  12:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Has one of the Presa nuts here offered to stop objecting to the Florida mauling if the San Francisco mauling is omitted?--AStanhope 16:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to go through every breed and report every sensationalistic attack or mauling? IF you want to include thbis information in a entry about dog maulings in the USA, then that would be more appropriate. All dogs are capable of inflicting harm under the right circumstances. Abherant behavior happens in all breeds of dogs. I feel that to keep including this sensationalistic representation of the only known fatal attack by a Presa Canario doe snothing but reduce thi siste to that of a tabloid. The Fact is the dog in florida is the only known fatal mauling by a Presa Canario EVER in the breeds history. The San Francisco incident was because of rampant abuse and neglect by the owners of the dogs, and the fact that the dogs were NOT Presa Canario but Mastiff crosses. Simply create a entry for fatal dog attacks in the USA and include EVERY breed. To do anyless is simply sensationalizing a tragedy in order to make a breed of dog appear to be blood thirsty and vicious. As a matter of rfairness, if you inclue information about a fatal attack for one breed, then so it must be for EVERY breed of dog. --PresaDog 02:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I am not just some breeder or owner. Me and my Wife were some of the very earliest people to import the breed into the United states. We have been active in the formation and running of the Dogo Canario Club of America, official delegates to the Club Espanol Del Dogo Canario in the Canary Islands, wich is the Parent breed club for the breed in Spain. We conduct national shows yearly for the past 12 years, we have numerous judges and experts on the breed travel from Spain to the United States. When I speak about the breed, it is from a posistion of some authority and expertise. I say this not to brag but so that people may understand a bit about me. I believe Astanhope is active in sockpuppeting to push his agenda for some unkown reason. It appears obvious that he has some kind of persoanl grudge against this breed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PresaDog (talk • contribs).


 * Some valid points by someone who obviously has experience and knowledge of the breed, however, this discussion is for this breed and this page. We could discuss every breed and every attack or mauling but those attacks are not really relevant to this discussion right now (some other dogs perceived as dangerous (Pit Bull. Rottweiler) do have bad press in their respective articles). We need to decide what information goes in this page and how it is presented. I don't think that completely leaving out the information is going to suit all involved so a compromise will need to be achieved.

Here is the disputed section as it stands, any comments or changes to make it more neutral and less sensational are welcome.

- Mr Bungle | talk  04:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good man Mr. Bungle! PresoDog is wrong. Why would you put in every single known dog attack into this particular wikipedia article? That information is irrelvant. Everybody is sorry that PresoDog is so upset, but it is fact that these dogs can be dangerous, and that needs to be reported. If PresoDog's profession is at stake because of these facts, then he should find a new job, breeding rabbits or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * It's not even a matter of "these dogs can be dangerous." To state that would, in fact, be POV.  The issue is that these attacks happened and made national news each time.  As I've stated before, fatal dog attacks are extremely rare and are therefore newsworthy when they occur.  I understand why PresaDog or PresaTruth are uncomfortable with this information being included in the article, however we all know that their discomfort is not a viable reason to exclude this information from the article.  This seems like a "slam dunk" in terms of articles like this in the Wikipedia.  I am genuinely surprised that anyone would argue against including these stories in good faith.  --AStanhope 23:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the name is PresaDog, Not Preso. No one said put every single dog mauling in this particular article, what was said is that if you are going to include it in the article on the Presa Canario, then out of fairness, include that type of information for EVERY dog breed. Otherwise you are creating a bias toward the breed that gives a false impression that the breed is dangerous and vicious. Any person with common sense who knows anything about dogs knows that under the right circumsatnces, any dog can attack. Sensationalising these incidents does one thing, it creates demand for a breed by the worst of society. We saw this happen after the Diane Whipple tragedy, It happens with the APBT as well. The news media hypes these dogs as dangerous and aggressive, thus making them attractive to thugs and gangsters and those psychos who want a killer dog.

The woman who was killed in FLA had a dog that allegedly she could not control. A great deal of information about that incident was never reported. The San Francisco Incident with the Presa Cross mixes was the result of severe abuse and neglect from the time the dogs were pups, in fact the breeders of those dogs were notorius back yard breeders.

You might say we are trying to cover up things with the breed, but that is the furthest from the truth. We have carefully screened potential buyers, constantly warned people that this is not a breed for teh average person. But you simply can not protect people from their own stupidity. I have no objection to the incidents in question being used in a article about dog attacks on humans were it is used in context. But to use these incidents in a way that is biased and lets people think these are rampaging monsters that will kill you for no reason, I will not stand for.PresaDog 20:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And are any of these types of warnings reflected here in the article? What language can you suggest?  Rklawton 20:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The article mentions a few times that these are large, dominant dogs who require a firm owner, and that this breed is not for the firswt time dog owner or for everyone.PresaDog 13:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good start. It should also say WHY.  Rklawton 15:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit
I'd like to request administrative removal of the second paragraph of the Temperament section. It's a content dispute, and I have admins' support in this matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perro_de_Presa_Canario&diff=151977468&oldid=151908828 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perro_de_Presa_Canario&diff=151877914&oldid=151875036

The last revert, by AlonsoDeCordoba is blatant sockpuppetry by Astanhope, a noted and prolific vandal. Please note the obvious similarities in language between this discussion edit by Astanhope:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perro_de_Presa_Canario&diff=151990958&oldid=151977468

and the comments entered in the last revert by User:AlonsoDeCordoba:AlonsoDeCordoba: "I disagree. Have you noticed that everyone disagrees with you?" Frangible 07:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article was just protected. Let's give it some time to cool off. Additionally, there should be consensus for changes, regardless of past views of others. Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The AlonsoDeCordoba user is not my sockpuppet. An admin should be able to verify that for me. Furthermore, I'm not a vandal and certainly not noted or prolific.  My point with regards to this article is simple: less than 10 people are killed by dog in the United States per year, making each occurrence notable in of itself.  The two killings involving Presa Canarios are well documented.  I can't imagine NOT including them in this article.  --AStanhope 16:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who Stanhope is, but I do know that when I come to read an article about something on Wikipedia, I expect to get the full facts, not a cover-up pursued by people with vested interest. Anyone reading about Presa Canarios should have the full relevant facts laid bare for them. Since it's an extraordinarily rare occurence for a dog to kill a human, and that has occured twice in the past few years with this already very rare breed, it's absolutely relevant to a general article about the breed. AlonsoDeCordoba 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, this breed is responsible for about six fatal maulings in the last 25 years. However, this breed isn't very common, so 6 is a pretty big number.  It's not as many as, say, a rottweiler.  However, there's a lot more rottweiler's.  Jack Russell terriers and poodles each have at least one kill to their credit, too.  But that brings up an interesting point.  Sensational stories do little to inform the reader about the dangers of a particular breed.  What we need are some decent sources that analyze deaths & mutilations against overall breed population.  Unfortunately, I haven't seen any editors who have produced such sources – and that's exactly what this section of the article needs.  Rklawton 16:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

6 deaths? Were in the world do you get your information from? Please provide some proof of this statement. PresaDog 20:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From this study: Presas have been involved with 6 deaths - Mr Bungle | talk  09:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The document you cite: http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf, is actually a bastardization of the original Pediatrics article here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/97/6/891.pdf - if you do a little digging: http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/meet_kmp.htm you'll see that the author of http://www.dogbitelaw.com is "Attorney Kenneth Phillips," and "His practice is devoted exclusively to representing dog bite victims throughout the United States (and obviously not copyright infringement - ed). Additionally, he assists legislators in drafting dog bite laws, appears in the news, teaches seminars, and writes books and articles about dog bite law." In a nutshell, the guy's a huge proponent of breed-specific legislation so he seems to have a tendency to play up the issue of "inherently dangerous dog breeds." The document itself lumps the presa canario in with the bullmastiff (er, "bull mastiff" - sic) as a single breed in one section and group "'pit bulls,' rottweilers, presa canarios and their mixes" into another. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, it doesn't take much in the way of critical analysis to see that anything published at http://www.dogbitelaw.com shouldn't be considered a reliable source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frangible (talk • contribs).


 * I am sorry but that "study" appears to be greatly flawed, it lists the Presa cAnario as a Bullmastiff, also lists the German Shepherd Dog as a bullmastiff. I dont know if you are aware of this or not but the Bullmastiff is a seperate breed. It also appears that the author of this alleged study has a bias slant against certain breeds such as teh Rottweiler and the American Pit Bull Terrier, it appears to be a bogus study used to inforce Breed Specific Legislation. Staements such as this "For the same reason, it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to

regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances." and this "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all." show that the author has a biased feeling towards these breeds. I find no referencing source material for the facts used as well.  The Presa cAnario has only been involved in ONE fatal attack in the USa, the SF case being presa crosses. I can not find any evidence of a Presa Canrio Killing a human in any other country they are kept in.   The Real Sociedad Club Espana, the Spanish Kennel club has no cases of a Presa killing a human. I can find no information on the web either. If you are using this study to show that the Presa CAnario has been involved in 6 human deaths then your reasoning is flawed as is this study. The author of this study, Merrit Clifton appears to be a  member of a Animal Rights activist organization, Ar groups are known to sponsor and back BSL laws aimed at eliminating dogs as pets and to eradicate dog ownership.PresaDog 19:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And you are a Preso dog breeder - so you have even more at stake in trying to protect the breed's reputation. Let's not forget my question below.  Exactly WHY do you not recommend this breed for novice dog owners?  Rklawton 19:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I am, I have already stated that. And why would I not be interested in protecting the breeds reputation? It is rather silly to think I would be just into this because. Every Dog breeder and canine enthusiast has a interest in protecting their chosen breeds image, especially from information that can cause more harm to the breed. There are forces at work in this world that are trying to do everything they can to make certain breeds illegal to own, even going to the extreme of getting all pet ownership banned. Might sound paranoid but it is a fact. I thought it was self explanatory why these dogs are not suitable for novice owners. They are a dominant breed, they need a owner who has knowledge about such dogs. Many breeds are not suitable for novice owners. Does that make them bad? Hardly. I have spent the last 12 years trying to educate people on my chosen breed, and to make sure that the information provided is accurate and precise. I am curious, who do you think should be interested in protecting this breed? We do not wish to see these dogs end up in the hands of fools and psychos looking to have a "killer' dog because they saw on some media outlet that they are Dangerous. Any dog, raised improperly can be a dangerous dog. IF it has Teeth it can bite. That does not make this report you cited any more accurate. There have not been 6 fatal attacks on humans by Presa Canarios. BTW, I have maybe 1 litter every few years, if at that. I make no monetary gains from breeding dogs. PresaDog 20:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Users: PresaDog and Presa Truth - same?
This isn't an accusation of sockpuppetry... I have been assuming that User:PresaDog and User:Presa Truth are the same person. User:Presa Truth seems to have stopped editing at some point and User:PresaDog appears to have resumed in Presa Truth's absence. Do these two clearly single-purpose accounts belong to the same person? --AStanhope 21:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No I am not PresaTruth. Honestly I have no idea who that person is. PresaDog 22:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Political Axe Grinding is NOT Good - Try to Have Some Perspective
Since Wikipedia is likely to be the among the first online references available to those seeking information on the breed, it's imperative that all sides of the dogo/FCI schism be represented fairly and as accurately as possible. Regardless of where your sensibilities might fall in that regard, by participating in the upkeep of this article, you're accepting the responsibility that comes with stewardship of this topic. With this breed in particular, it's of the utmost importance that those who are unfamiliar with the presa or (even more importantly) considering ownership should be as informed as possible regarding the realities and truths of the breed. Among the most important truths of the breed is that there are some very strong, often conflicting opinions. I urge those who participate in this article's upkeep focus on REPORTING and resist the urge to editorialize, censor or advance a particular agenda. Additionally, I'd like to propose the addition a section specifically aimed at documenting the controversy surrounding the conflicting standards, registries, etc - again, it's an important part of the WHOLE story and anyone in search of information regarding the breed has a right to have that information available to him/her. (I'm just getting around to signing this now, too)Frangible 03:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Try to get this worked out

 * As a result of the above posting by Rklawton (concerning the Breeder's Assoc. and resulting COI impications diff here), I feel like I should weigh in here (Full disclosure: I was asked to comment back in June by AStanhope, but chose not to, due to my unfamiliarity with the subject, but it has been on my watchlist ever since. He did not ask me to !vote or endorse his opinion.  The link to the request on my talk page is here, for anyone who may be concerned). whew. . .a couple of points:


 * 1) I read upthread (coment in this section by RkLawton) that sources exist concerning the temperament of the breed, Whether good or bad this should be included in a non-sensational way.  I say "non-sensational" because PresaDog has a point about people seeking out dogs with a certain notoriety, for nefarious purposes.  However, that people do this is not a reason to hold back information.
 * 2) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS -whatever is included about breeds of dogs on other pages has nothing to do with this page. If this type of info (breed temperment) on other dogs is not included elsewhere, then where available, it should be.  Anyone is free to make a case for adding material on any other page, and do so based on the merits of the addition to that page.  And the material there doesn't really have anything to do with the information on this page.
 * 3) Concerning the 2 cases where a person (or persons) has been killed: It is my understanding that there is a wikipedia article on at least one of them.  If the breed is mentioned in that article, it should be linked to, related articles are linked on Wikipedia.  There should probably be a short non-sensationalist description of what is being linked to, whether that means it is a short paragraph or a sentence doesn't bother me either way.  I think Mr. Bungle has made a good attempt to reconcile the various concerns of the editors here.
 * 4) Sockpuppet accusations and COI: I don't know if there are any socks here, but it's not right to accuse unless it's painfully obvious.  If anyone believes there's a sock, go to Requests for checkuser, that's what it's there for.  What does appear to be the case, however, is a conflict of interest by one (or some) party(ies).  They need to read WP:COI, and follow it.
 * 5) This needs to be resolved, if I know Alison, this page won't be unprotected until it is. And if it's receiving scrutiny from the media, all the more reason to do so quickly.

2 cents, R. Baley 21:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am merley expressing my opinions and concerns about this topic. IF mention of the attacks must be made, then it should be in a way that does not sensationalize them and make this breed of dog out to be some killer monster. The SF case has been overly documented sensationalized by the media for years. As with the case of in Florida, most of the facts involving the attack are not known, only conjecture that the owner did not have control of her dog and let the dog dominate her. The problem with reporting dog attacks is very few actully report as to the cause. Dogs dont just atack out of the blue. There are always signs.

I propose a section to the article that refers to Dog Safety. I feel that the wording in the Temperament issue is suffice, stating that they are a dominant breed in need of a firm owner and not for the novice. There is a lot of misconception on this breed steming mostly from the medi after the SF case. This breed has been unfairly demonized by the media and groups looking to use it as the next poster boy of EVIL dogs. PresaDog 20:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is being dominated by one's dog necessarily a bad thing? Aren't there certain special situations where one might actually seek being dominated by their dog?  --AStanhope 21:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dog Safety, Dog Domination, etc. immediately raise red flags for OR and POV. Isn't there a strong consensus here, minus the opinion of a self-professed biased editor, that simply including antiseptic descriptions of the attacks as per their well-documented national news coverage is the appropriate thing to do here?  --AStanhope 21:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, no strong consensus here - as a matter of fact, I'm just starting to make my case. I would've started sooner, but I decided to take the advised "cooling off" period. I'm going to make sure that everyone involved here hears out every single one of my points on the topic. If I'm ultimately not persuasive, so be it. What I ask is that my points be heard. It might take a couple of days as work and sleep tend to interfere with my ability to keep pace with you "lifers." Frangible 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've noted elsewhere on this page, I think that citing one or two attacks provides a useful illustration for a point that has not yet been made using reliable sources - that is, that this breed can be dangerous to humans. Illustrating a point that has not been sourced qualifies as original research.  However, I have little doubt that research on dog attacks has been done, can be found in a reliable source, and would add fair and useful information to this article.  Once that's done, the attacks currently cited can be placed in perspective - and fairly included.  Rklawton 22:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All dog breeds, for that matter any domesticated animal can be dangerous to humans. They are after all, animals. They do not always act in a predictable manner. I Think anybody with any common sense knows that if it has teeth, it can bite under the right (wrong) circumstances. This is supposed to be a informative article representing the breed. The Mention of the attacks I feel would still be better servied in a article on Dog attacks where it would be more fitting. As a dog fancier I do not read articles or books on dogs looking to see how many people they have attacked. Dog attacks are so variable as to the causes of them. It is too simple to generalize a breed as "Dangerous" because some owners failed to take the proper measures to adequately train the dogs or meet basic requirements for any dog.PresaDog 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * NO having a dog dominate you is NEVER a good thing. No matter what breed it is. A dog that feels it is dominant to you is your ALPHA. One way a Alpha corrects a behavior in a submissive dog is to Bite it. This leads to many dog attacks. Dominance can lead to aggression, aggression can lead to a attack. PresaDog 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So why isn't the Presa Canario a good breed for novice dog owners?
To address Rklawton's second question...

For starters, the most obvious reason why presas are not recommended for novice dog owners simply has to do with their physical size. As you can see from the standard, these dogs tend to weight upwards of 100lbs - and, unfortunately, due in no small part to Americans' obsession with bigger=better, it's getting more common to see 130+lbs presas around (an overly large build is not considered an asset in a working dog as it affects a dog's stamina, agility, athleticism and working ability in general - the trend toward more size and loss of working ability is another huge point of contention among breed authorities ). No matter how naturally even tempered, dogs will behave like dogs and are dependent on their owners for socialization, training and general control - and the prospect of allowing an athletic 100+lbs dog to get to the point where it behaves like Great Aunt Edna's salty toy poodle is a scary prospect, indeed. Also, a 100+lbs dog can do quite a bit of unintentional damage - the bull/china shop analogy comes to mind. Children and others of small stature, for example, can easily be knocked down unintentionally and hurt. In fact, I've had my lip split open by my dog once - I arrived home from work, bent down to say hello to her and in her excitement she swung her head up and hit me right in the face.

Secondly, an ideal presa is significantly more athletic than similarly-sized dogs. The neapolitan mastiff, for example, has become a shadow of it's historical, working self and evolved into little more than a lawn ornament at this point in it's development. In the 19th century, the great dane was considered one of the preferred breeds for hunting wild boar - now "nervy" and dysplasic danes seem to be more and more common, unfortunately. Part of the intent in the recreation of the presa canario was to resurrect the large, capable working dog from when the Canaries were, essentially, and agrarian society and any animal that couldn't keep up with it's required work wasn't worth keeping around. So, when you hear the presa canario described as a "capable" breed, it means exactly that - capable of doing work that requires stamina and athleticism that is not the norm for a dog of it's size. This general "capability" and working background means that presas are the quintessential example of a dog that needs a job of some sort and needs to be worked and exercised regularly or that exceptional size and athleticism might be redirected into not-so-constructive pursuits - I'm on my second coffee table, for example, for committing a not-enough-working infraction.

The third point has to do with the type of work the breed was developed for and it's associated temperament. Curto makes reference to the earliest examples of "presa work" such as guarding and driving cattle, "keeping the pigs," killing wild dogs, working as "butchers' dogs" to "hold the cattle tight for their sacrifice" and later, in the 20th century, as traditional agrarian dog work began to disappear, dog fighting. In short, these dogs were developed to do rough, violent work, that in addition to physical strength and stamina, required a fearless, tenacious, dominant and independent temperament. They were most definitely not bred to keep the emperor's feet warm, rescue drowning swimmers or ride on fire engines. Consequently, a perspective presa owner must always bear in mind that their dogs will have a tendency to be dog aggressive (no dog parks), territorial (make sure the presa's away if the meter reader is coming), protective (make sure the presa is extremely well-socialized so that it doesn't interpret every strange situation or person as a potential threat) and headstrong (make sure you know how to let a large, capable dog understand that all humans in the household are above it in the pecking order).

Now, those points made, aside from "rough" work, modern presas can also be found working as therapy dogs, pulling scooters  and participaing in agility  and dock diving competitions. Frangible 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Astanhope exactly what is your issue with this breed?
I fail to see why you are so obsessed with portraying this breed as being dangerous with your continuous vandalizing of the Presa Canario temperament section. How much actual experience do you have with this breed? --PresaDog 18:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got no issue with this breed. I'm not even really a dog person, although I grew up with mastiffs.  I know how loving even big and presumably tough/dangerous dogs can be.  The fact remains, however, that in the United States fatal maulings of humans by dogs - by PETS - are EXTREMELY RARE occurrences.  We are 7 years into the 21st century.  It is ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT to point out that TWO of the handful of maulings that have occurred to date in the US this century happened with this breed of dog.  This is just simple honesty - the reporting of facts.  I realize that as a Presa Canario owner/breeder/seller you'd rather this information not appear in the article.  Unfortunately, by REMOVING the information you are expressing a "point of view" (POV) in the article and that is forbidden here.  Without any emotion, I am presenting the FACTS surrounding these maulings - there is no POV surrounding these facts.  Your POV is that fatal maulings are not indicative of the breed's general temperament.  That may very well be true, but it is still your POV and you are violating Wikipedia policy every time you remove the info.  --AStanhope 19:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

IF you are going to point out attacks by dogs then you must go through EVERY breed and alsolist every mauling and attack. What facts do you know about the maulings? You are not even aware that in the Diane whipple case, the dogs in question were Presa CRoss breeds, not pure bred Presas. What you are doing is sensationalizing these events. It has already been determined that your "facts" are not relevant to the information about the Presa in this entry, yet you insist on adding it over and over. If it was a entry about dog attacks, that would be one thing. I am sorry but I fail to see how your actions are not a biased POV.Do you plan on entering the attacks for every breed of dog known? How about the deaths caused by Huskys, pomeranians, daschunds, Labs, Goldens, Great Danes Etc?  PresaDog 03:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to update those other dogs' articles for all of the instances where they've fatally mauled Americans. Good luck!  --AStanhope 21:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I should advise other admins that the Breeder's Association has been anonymously editing this article to remove negative information. That's probably not exactly news, but it's hit the news, so I figure I should give everyone a heads up. Rklawton 20:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Feh! I found the offending post from Wired's wikidgame that seems to have inspired the mention of this mysterious "breeders association" in the NZ Herald article: It looks like the site changes often, so I'm sticking a screenshot here: [[Image:Wikidgame_presa_canario.gif]] - anyway, the diff cited is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perro_de_Presa_Canario&diff=81916679&oldid=81826406 - and, sure enough, it's an AOL proxy. AStanhope, I know you're going to deny to your last breath that you had anything to do with this - but I know better and, based on the wide reach of this particular prank, you're my new Internet hero for about the next 10 minutes. Regardless, I still don't think you know what you're talking about wrt this article. Frangible 05:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is this "Breeders Association" ? There are two breed clubs in the USA, the UPPCC ( United Perro de Presa Canario club) and the DCCA ( Dogo Canario Club of America,of wich I am a founding member). I want to know how you can determine that members of a breeders association are editing anonymously? What about all the vandalizing of the article by people who are putting in malicious and fasle statements about the breed? As far as I know the editor Frangible has been doing the most edits, and as far as I know this person is not a member of either club. There are also clubs in other countries such as the Club Espanol del Dogo Canario in Tenerife, and the Club Wanak in Spain. As well as clubs in Poland, Italy, Brazil and NOrway.  Do you see what IO mean about sensationalistic hype by the media? PresaDog 18:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of an organization by the name of Perro de Presa Canario Dog Breeders Association of America and, frankly, between this newspaper quote and the anon edit originating from a proxy server in China (!?) my script kiddie detector is indicating that something fishy is going on. Perhaps they have the name confused with the United Perro de Presa Canario Club? The problem with that conclusion is that the organization's headquarters exists in a dude's house in North Jersey, so I'm skeptical that anyone from that organization that might be involved in this dust up has an IP that resolves to anything other than an AOL dial-up. I mean, it seems they can barely even keep their Web site updated.

As far as leveling accusations of sock puppetry at a certain editor... Well, there are very odd similarities in the language used by various anon and freshly-registered editors that suddenly showed up out of nowhere to join the fray. My undergrad is in Linguistics and I've only been able to "practically" apply that degree in two ways: 1) I can argue about Chomsky when I want to impress girls and 2) I obsess over the little details of folks' speaking and writing. Regardless, a standard application of Occam's razor to the situation would, I'm sure, lead most reasonable people to come up with the same conclusion. The problem is I have no concrete proof, don't understand the official process of calling a sock puppet out and don't want to waste time on it right now.

Oh, and yes, PresaDog's assertion that I am not involved with any of the breed clubs is correct. This is why I chose to get involved in this mess, use a pseudonym and post limited personal information. My goal is to be as honest and unbiased as possible in my editing here. If there is a COI on my part it is, I believe, barely on the radar. My interest in the breed, as I wrote some time ago, started with my acquisition of a large, brindled rescue dog. I had never heard of the breed before, but seemed to have some decent dog/human chemistry with her and decided to take her in based on her own, individual merits. You can imagine what started running through my head the first time I googled "presa canario" - which started me down the path to learning as much as possible about 1) the breed's history, characteristics, etc 2) living with a large, dominant, working breed of dog and integrating an adult of that ilk into your household (I suggest http://leerburg.com/articles.htm as a good place to start if you're interested in good, useful information in that regard) 3) breed-specific business and public policies as they apply to "dangerous" breeds 4) the circumstances surrounding the death of Diane Whipple. Oddly enough, before my "education," I would've quickly agreed with Astanhope on his "it's a slam dunk" statement - but getting more insight on the topic, particularly the circumstances and back story surrounding Diane Whipple's death, gave me a whole different perspective on the matter.

I suppose it's also worth mentioning that I live in Pennsylvania so, by law, my homeowner's insurance can't make an issue of what breed of dog I choose to keep. My dog is spayed. I don't do anything to promote the breed other than get into lengthy conversations with strangers when I'm walking my dog. I really don't have anything invested in this other than the fact that I want to see a truthful article about the breed here so that anyone considering a presa will have all the information, without spin in any particular direction.

When one starts doing pointed research on the breed, one thing becomes clear very quickly: There's an awful lot of misleading information out there. I'm not just talking about the fatalities attributed to the breed. There's a whole lot of political infighting within the presa/dogo communities (or community, depending on where you happen to stand on the issue). My original intent was to start to work on documenting the various sides' points of view - the black coat is a good example of this. Lately, however, I've found myself distracted and unable to continue in that direction.

I'll now explain why I brought up the issue of breed politics. One of the best sources for straightforward information about the breed is Manuel Curto Gracia (http://www.iremacurto.com/presacanario/english/default_ing.htm) he's one of the original and best known of the original preseros involved in the reconstruction of the breed. In fact, he literally wrote the book on the presa canario (http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=9781593783310). He is, I'd also assume, not on good terms with PresaDog as Curto had quite a falling out with the FCI some time ago and, among other things, now insists that the presa canario and dogo canario are two separate breeds. So my point is that you shouldn't assume that everyone on my particular side of the "attacks" argument operates in cahoots with each other as part of some grand conspiracy to keep up the "party line" - nothing could be further from the truth. Many, if not most, of the most notable people in the breed(s) can barely stand each other and argue incessantly, like it's their job - a perusal of the elpresa.com and dogocanarioclub.org forums will bear this out.

Curto is, first and foremost, who I had in mind when I suggested sources for further research. Curto addresses the San Francisco attack here: http://www.iremacurto.com/presacanario/english/articles/archives/Bane.htm

"The Presa Canario Dog is psychically stable, affectionate with the family, good guardian and defender of its territory, brave, nothing biter, able to coexist with other domestic animals, when he has grow up with them from pup. In the Canary Islands there have been no behavior problems, aggressions, deaths of humans, on the part of Presa Canario Dogs. There are presas canarios dogs that can get to bite the intruder, or delinquent who enter in his territory, but never until killing it."

So that's what the most prominent contributor to the creation of the modern presa canario has to say about it's temperament. Despite the bad translation, I think it's perfectly clear what these dogs are supposed to be like.

I will continue with my commentary and arguments later, after I've slept. My intent tonight was to establish that I'm not just a "presa nut" with easily-hurt feelings and some sort of vested interest in covering up "harmful" information about the breed. Rather, my interest in the topic has become something of a hobby - like other guys are into fantasy football, for example, I'm interested in learning as much as I can about these dogs, then discussing and arguing about it. It's a semi-arcane topic that I find fascinating. Frangible 03:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there somebody sane who can take care of this?
Is there? --AStanhope 20:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but what do you consider insane about this, or whom? I think Frangible has made a very good case, better then I, that the attacks would sensationalize the events and place a bias on the breed as being inherently dangerous to humans. PresaDog 20:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My case isn't even made yet. There were direct questions asked for which I attempted to offer thorough answers and accusations of a COI that I attempted to address. It's the laying of groundwork. This dispute has been going on for a long time and, therefore, needs extensive discussion. The meat of my argument will answer the following question: What makes the majority of media reporting on Dianne Whipple's death inaccurate & sensationalistic and, therefore, inappropriate for this article? In order to get to that point, anyone participating in this exchange is going to have to get up to speed on quite a bit of information not included in the article. A large amount of sourcing for my argument, however, is coming from ODT books and articles (such as _The_Red_Zone_ by Aphrodite Jones, Curto's book and various other sources) - so it's going to take some time and I'm going to take as long as it takes to be thorough, informative and persuasive. Unfortunately, I have a day job.


 * As far as my digging around re the NZ Herald article: Since this article is "attracting the attention of the admins," I'm also going to do what I need to do to address and discredit false accusations.Frangible 21:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Dog fighting breeds
Someone please add the following category to this breed, I cannot edit due to protection +tag. Chessy999 10:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll need to provide sources before we add this. Rklawton 18:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are lots go find some citation Chessy999 18:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the status of this situation?
Has everyone lost interest in this or what?PresaDog 15:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Systeme Internationale
Metric measurements? 58.6.92.29 01:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Banned in New Zealand
Under legislation announced 31-Oct-2007, this breed is banned from import in NZ. based on information from Australia the Presa Canario breed is the one "we would want to take some pre-emptive action against". ref: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4256771a10.html. Not sure if this is relevant or encyclopedic, please include if deemed suitable. 123.255.30.169 05:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If we're not going to move the negative press attention stuff from 'Temprament' to 'Negative attention' or 'Bad press' or some similar section, that should fit in there. John Nevard 01:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

External Links - Articles
I'd like to request administrative intervention to insert links to other informative articles about the Presa Canario breed. Links from this website were deleted many times by web vandals which do not want these contents to be widely available to Presa Canario enthusiasts. Please insert them. They will be enjoyed by genuine breed fanciers.

El Perro de Presa Canario - By Clemente Reyes Santana

Interview with Mr. Asensio - By Luis Lozano

Authentic Perro de Presa Canario - By Sergio Aguiro

The Presa Canario and the Dogo Canario - By Manuel Curtò

81.72.139.113 09:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Becerillo

I support these additions. Frangible 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Presa Canario – Legislative basis
The Presa Canario has a solid legislative basis in Spain, and it is recognized as such by a Real Decree of the MAPA (Minister of Agriculture Fishing and Nutrition), wich was published in the Official Gazzette of the Spanish Government (– Boletin Oficial del Estado]).

The original Decreto 558/2001] can be read on the site of the Spanish Government Gazzette.

In this authentic legislative source the breed is named precisely as “Presa Canario” which therefore should be considered as its only legal name. A breed standard is attached in the Real Decree and it includes the black coat and the maximum weight.

Any other name or Standards are not recognized by the Spanish Law and should not be used with the name Presa Canario.

At present moment in Spain there are two main organizations which are legally recognized by the Minister of Agriculture Fishing and Nutrition (according to the requirements set by the Decree 558/2001]): the ] and the ]. The term “legally recognized” means that these organizations have the power to inscribe the litters into the official Book of Origins of Spain (LOE – Libro de Origines Espanol).

The FCE already recognizes the breed according to Spanish law, which all organizations must respect, and therefore uses the Presa Canario name and standard, as set by the Decreto 558/2001].

The RSCE at present moment still recognizes the FCI breed called Dogo Canario, but it has not any legal basis in Spain and should with all effects and consequences be considered another, different breed. The position of the RSCE is delicate, as it is a private organization just like the FCE, and as such it must respond of their actions to the Spanish Government. For this it is likely that also the RSCE should in the next future accept (or be forced to, according to law) the breed with his proper name and standard. official document] of the Spanish Government has been issued and sent to the RSCE to warn it and to invite it to modify its regulations, due to the fact that the RSCE is not a public subject in any form.

Another recent legal source can be listed to support the correct denomination of the breed, and it is the Decreto 1557/2005]. This further decree content confirm the breed name is Presa Canario and give the legislative power of official association recognition to the local governments, the breeds are listed here too, and the breed is listed as “Presa Canario” again.

These are legal proofs that this is a Spanish breed recognized as such by the Spanish Government with the name Presa Canario, with a standard which includes the black coat and a maximum weight.

Any other source claiming the Presa Canario and the Dogo Canario are the same breeds cannot provide any legal proof of their theories, being the Dogo Canario a breed recognized by the FCI (which is a private organization) with a denomination and a Standard that are not set accordingly to the law of the Spanish Government, as published in the Official Gazzette. Those organizations which act in the Spanish territory agains the spanish laws will have to respond legally of their actions.

81.72.139.113 11:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Becerillo

This raises the question of whether the presa canario and dogo canario should have their own, separate articles. What is your opinion on the matter? Frangible 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Perro de Presa Canario Wikipedia Censorship Controversy
This section derives some of its informatin from a single, brief, mention in an article about Wikipedia censorship. The rest of this section comprises original research. Such a brief mention in a single article does not warrent mention, not to mention a section, in the article about this breed. Wikipedia also tends to avoid self-references unless the matter is truly significant. That is, the bar for inclusion is a bit higher for matters involving self-reference. Rklawton 14:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Article protected
... yet again, for exactly the same reasons it was protected two months back. I guess nothing has been resolved here - A l is o n  ❤ 15:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

External Links - Articles
editprotected


 * External links won't be added until the disputes are resolved and the page is unprotected. Please limit editprotected requests to spelling fixes and other things that don't change content. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit protection
editprotected A Wikipedia Admin should include this legal information which shed light on the controversy which caused this page to be protected. Here are not reported opinions, but public laws of a Sovereign Country. I think the Spanish Government is a trustable source for Wikipedia to publish this information and preserve it from being deleted by web vandals who just do not agree with the contents they read.


 * This article has just been reprotected due to edit warring. Until the dispute is resolved, it would be inappropriate for any admin to add significant content to the article. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem stems not from Spanish laws (which remain as recently added), but the addition of new disputed or irrelevant material without prior talk page discussion. While editors are typically free to add new information to articles, this particular article has been the subject of prolonged disputes, and adding such material without discussion on the day the article was unprotected was unwise.  I removed the most problematic material and contacted another admin for review.  She found this sufficient reason to re-protect the article.  Now, if you wish to discuss your intended additions, I've started relevant threads below.  Rklawton 20:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Temperament
The studies cited for the presas and dogos can not be cited without mentioning that of 27,000 animals tested using these methods, only 14 were presas and 2 were dogos. These numbers are not statistically significant and should not be used as they are here for comparison. As a minimum, the reader should be informed that these numbers derive from extremely small sample sizes. In short, it's deceptive to claim a 100% pass rate when only 2 animals were tested. The 100% number is, at this point, meaningless, and therefore not appropriate for inclusion here. Rklawton 14:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's my reasoning: The best source I can find that has an actual number (SF Gate) says there are about 1000 presa canarios in the US. Allowing some fudge factor (and operating under the assumption that the DC and PC are the same breed), you could say roughly 2% of these dogs have undergone temperament testing with success - and that number is enough to find a correlation.

While cranking out that paragraph, I didn't quite have a grasp of the "no original research" thing and didn't realize what I was writing was headed in that direction - now I get it. In this case, it would've been much more productive for you to exhibit more patience with my understanding of what will fly in this format.

All that said, the ATTS numbers should stay, minus the original research of course.

My approach with the latest round of edits was to get the ball rolling and let more savvy editors, such as yourself, help get it more polished and acceptable. Deleting entire paragraphs with new, notable content (at least roughly speaking) is unproductive and not in the spirit of consensus.-- Frangible (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It would have been wiser to bring this items up on the talk page first for discussion. And no, a sample size of 2 is not sufficient to draw conclusions.  Please also keep in mind that 2 out of 1000 is not 2% but 0.2%.  Lastly, this website isn't publishing research results at all.  It is publishing test results for animals brought in for testing.  This is a far cry from animal behavioral research in which researches test random samples from a population.  -- Rklawton (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No I meant roughly 2% - 16/~1000 - I'm rounding up, but that shouldn't surprise you. Something anyone not familiar with the breed(s) should remember is that there's an ongoing debate about whether the presa canario and dogo canario are the same dog.


 * So far, the majority of the editing taking place here has operated under the notion that they are the same breed, hence my inclusion of both PC and DC in the count. On that note, my original intent in getting involved here was to try and encourage the addition of more material relating to the PC!=DC/PC=DC argument in that pinning down reliable information on the topic is difficult. Despite my own views on the matter, I've decided to stay neutral and anonymous on this topic. I was anxious to get the anon addition relating to "Legislative Basis" added because it sheds some light on one side of the argument.


 * Regarding "research" on the behavior of various breeds, it's notoriously difficult to get an accurate representation as most stats - such as the CDC's dog bite stats - rely on eyewitnesses to traumatic situations (who probably are not exactly experts at identifying dogs, even under the best circumstances) to identify the breed(s) involved. Not surprisingly, dogs that are short haired and medium in size are usually identified as "pitbulls" - but now I'm getting into a whole other can of worms.


 * The deal with the presa canario is kind of similar (and why I'm stubborn on this point) in that the breed just didn't exist in any form officially until 1989 - there was literally no such thing as a presa canario, the "breed history" refers to the type of work the dogs were required to do and if any old mutt could to the work, it was a "presa." Consequently, until perhaps the last few years (and even currently, to some extent) a dog sold as a presa canario was just as likely to be a mastiff/bulldog mix/mutt of some sort and would be tagged as a presa just because it was close enough to the phenotype. Some of the first "champion" presa canarios were straight up bullmastiff/bulldog crosses.


 * Even now, many, many less-than-scrupulous individuals just cross a mastiff with a bulldog and sell them as presa canarios. This was more or less exactly the case with the SF dogs - recent mastiff crosses sold to some convicts (suckers) as the real deal with "ancient Spanish bloodlines." This is why I think it's important that if I'm going to concede to the inclusion of the fatal attacks in this article, the phrase "identified as" is important - I'd stick my neck out and say that a unsettlingly large proportion of the dogs passed off as presa canarios in the US have no ancestors from the Canary Islands at all. It's an important distinction to be aware of.


 * Real presas and/or dogos out of an authentic, reliable and responsible breeding program will, by design, be very, very stable dogs. Mutts sold as presas, well, it's anybody's guess what sort of temp you're going to wind up with.Frangible (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can find a few reliable sources for this, I think it would make an interesting addition to the article. Rklawton (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Negative Notoriety
I've removed the word "Negative" from this section heading. It seemed rather POV as notoriety can work either way (though "notoriety" may itself have some negative weight). Suggestions welcome. Rklawton 21:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I used the heading "Negative Notoriety" because it was the best I could think of and I'm game for someone coming up with something more suitable. Referring to the fatalities simply as "Notoriety," however, suggests that the only thing the breed has going for it, in terms of notoriety, is the fact that it's been linked to these incidents. That being the case, can we look at a thesaurus and come up with something else? -- Frangible (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand
New Zealand's proposal to ban importing this breed seems relevant to this article. Would anyone care to propose a brief paragraph about this news item? Rklawton 21:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I know this might shock you, but I don't entirely agree that this is notable - import restrictions on "dangerous breeds" - including the PC - have been implemented and in place in countries all over the world (UK, Australia, Germany, etc) for quite some time. If there's notability here, it's only because it's a relatively recent news item. Is recent news one of the criteria for inclusion? -- Frangible (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. Perhaps it would be best to publish a list of countries prohibiting or restricting this breed of dog.  -- Rklawton (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you're sitting down, because this will also shock you: I disagree. I'm willing to have a discussion about it and try to be open-minded on my end, but at this point I believe that any input or argument I make will be ignored or dismissed by you.
 * Your continued failure to assume good faith is only going to get you in trouble. Now, try to focus on stating your reasons why you disagree.  Aside from personal insults, you've given us nothing to work with here.  Rklawton (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of name Shawna Willey
As per the story in the reference, this woman's name was Willey, not Wiley. I would have changed it if the article hadn't been protected. Songflower (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I made the change.  I also removed a few words that hyped the subject.  I think it's better to just stick with the facts.  If this is a problem for anyone, please note it below.  Rklawton (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the name of this Breed?
The existing breed talbe says that Dogo Canario is an alternative name for this breed; latest anon addition says it's a different breed. Can anyone cite references for one way or the other? Elf | Talk 21:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That and the breed history is false. It's undisputed, when the English took the island they bred the local drover to English Mastiffs. It's probable that bulldogs/bull-and-terriers were also introduced. Today's product is largely a recovered one. When Carl Semenic began writing about the Perro de Presa Canario he called it the Canary Dog or Dogo Canario, which makes sense because it is an English dog as it was bred by Englishmen for their entertainment and from English breeds and on English territory. This article should be shut down until someone w/ the correct information desries re-writing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.190.89.143 (talk • contribs)

Can you clarify? The question was essentially "is A or B correct", and this answer is "that is false", which isn't too helpful... Elf | Talk 22:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know much about this dog, but I can state the following with complete certainty. “Presa Canario” means “seizing dog”, “holding dog” or “capturing dog,” or words to that effect. Anyone who believe that this is not so is wrong.Chrisrus (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Original Purpose?
Please Agree or Disagree

It is normal for articles on breeds to comment on the original purpose for which the breed was developed. For example, an article on the fox terrier should explain that they were bred for hunting foxes, and probably about just how and why they were used to hunt foxes.

This article does this in the following way:

In the intro, it says "This large breed was originally bred as a multi-purpose farm dog, being used as a cattle drover and guard dog." This sentence is a summary, of course, there is a separate section below on the history of the dog where the matter is to be given more detail:

The first paragraph of the history mentions the purpose of this breed's ancestral breeds, except the Mastif, but that's ok as one could click the Mastiff link.

The second paragraph contains this sentence: "It is believed that the Perro de Presa Canario was created during the 18th century for the purpose of property and flock guarding as well as the holding and driving of livestock."

Here we find my first problem. I do not like this sentence and would like to ask the author why he or she has included the first part, "It is believed that" and ask why it shouldn't be deleted. What is the purpose of saying "it is beleived that"? Aren't these "weasel words"? Why not take them out?

If that's agreed, we would be left with this: "Perro de Presa Canario was created during the 18th century for the purpose of property and flock guarding as well as the holding and driving of livestock."

Now I would ask, guarding from what? People, not wolves on Canary Island. So it was a guard dog that slept with the cows or goats to keep people from stealing them? Are there people who use this breed to guard livestock today, and how do they perform? Was it used as a sentry, to deter intruders, or to attack? This is the kind of information that one finds in the best dog breed articles.

Then, separately from guard duty, we are told that they were used for "the holding and driving of livestock". Holding means what? How did the dogs hold livestock, and what features of the breed explain why they were good for this purpose?

Driving or droving them? The article on the old English Sheepdog explains that they had a special gait and the patience and determination to keep the whole heard ahead of it on narrow roads for many hours on end. Was it this kind of animal "driving" that this breed was developed for, or what type of "driving" did they do? Please describe briefly but in detail.

It then says this: “The breed was also used for dog fighting, a tradition the English settlers transplanted along with their Mastiff and Bulldog breeds.” This clearly means that the reason the dogs were used for fighting because Englishmen moved to the Canary Islands and brought the dog fighting culture with them.

But then the next sentence says “Canary Islanders consider these fights "honor fights" and not the sole purpose of the animal.” This is in the present tense, meaning that Canary Islanders continue to fight the dogs, but also and primarily continue to use them as drivers, herders, and guard dogs. But despite the tense, the context seems to say that this was also their tradition at the time of the English settlement. Is this the authors' intention?

Also, by saying that the Canary Islanders call their dog fights (which were transplanted from English culture or not?) “honor fights”, this sentence asks more than it tells. What in the world can "honor fight" mean, an honorable dog fight? This idea of “honor fights’ needs to be explained or not mentioned.

Then it says “Presa type dogs were referred to as the "perro de la tierra" or "dog of the land." I have several problems with this sentence.

First, “Presa-type” should be hyphenated.

Second, we have already dealt with the breed’s ancestral breeds in the first paragraph of the history, so we should move this sentence there or delete it, because now we are talking about this breed, not that one, and the presence of this sentence in the second paragraph is therefore confusing. We now focus on the breed in question, not the breeds which this breed was bred from. Second, “perro de la tierra” to my mind (I speak Spanish) translates to English as “land dog” or “terrier” better than it does “Dog of the Land,” which uses a Latin syntax that connotes in English in a way that “Land Dog” or “Perro de la Tierra” do not.

Third, in context, this sentence, to my mind at least (please check the context to check if you agree) means that they Canary Islanders didn’t think of them as fighting dogs, but primarily as drovers or guard dogs. But the fact that they called a previously-existing breed a terrier, or a land dog, or un perro de la tierra has nothing to do with whether they were farm dogs or intimidation guard dogs or fighting dogs, so the sentence makes no sense. I say delete it!

Also, this entire paragraph seems summarizable as “This breed had several uses.” But the next paragraph says that the breed almost went extinct because dog fighting was ended. But if the breed had several uses, it would not have become extinct just because dog fighting ended. The fact instead serves as evidence that dog fighting was the primary function of the breed. The two paragraphs are therefore contradictory.

This article should be revised to simply but specifically explain what the breed was bred for and how it was used, or the extent to which this can be known or reasonably speculated.

Now look back at the summary: "This large breed was originally bred as a multi-purpose farm dog, being used as a cattle drover and guard dog." Why is fighting not mentioned in the summary? It is the the body the intro summarizes! The text says it was bred FROM farm dogs to be a drover, guard dog, and a fighting dog. It seems well cited, too, that the Presa was bred to be at least partly a fighting dog.

Agree or disagree? Chrisrus (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a mouthful to respond to, but I think I can offer some insight into why the language is what it is.


 * First, with all the edit-warring that's gone on here, most of what you find here is verbatim from the source at this point. Weakness in the language here is due to weakness in the language of the sources themselves - this is due in no small part, I believe, to the fact that much of the best historical information is from badly-translated Spanish. The "it is believed" part is right from the sources, however - prior to the 19th century there isn't a whole lot of written history about the presa, just educated guesses based on what little information is available. If you get yourself familiar with some of the Curto material, you'll see that he's pretty straightforward about the fuzzy history of the presa.


 * Another point to bear in mind is that the "historic" presa was a type of dog, identified by it's capabilities and not a breed, per se. These capabilities - the "work" the dog was expected to perform - were moving targets and evolved over time. Hunting & killing wild dogs, a butcher's dog, a catch dog, a guard dog, cattle drover, fighting dog - each of these roles were pertinent at discrete points in the Islands' history and reflect the evolution of the islands' society. This is probably why the breed is so revered in the islands now - as living representation of the islands' history.


 * If you need some insight on the rougher details of what "holding and driving" livestock is supposed to mean, I'll get right to the point - the idea is that this particular type of dog uses it's teeth on cattle to inspire a sense of cooperation (or hold it still while a butcher delivers the coup de grace). They're still used for this sort and other types of rough work today - hog catching, guardian work, etc. They're also used in a variety of not-so-rough work today, too (weight pull competition, as therapy dogs, carting/scootering, etc). The reconstructed presa BREED (vs the presa type of the past) is very much a new thing and the type(s) of work the presa is most suited for is something that's still being figured out.


 * The focus on the fighting role of the presa is mostly (but not entirely) a 20th century thing in that the presa took on the role of fighter exclusively with the decline of agrarian society in the islands - less farming equaled less demand for the presa as a farm dog. I believe what the "honor fight" reference is trying to get at is that the presa was not a pit fighter and there was never formalized dog fighting with the presa like we think of it in the US & UK. In the islands' agrarian times, fighting was part of how they determined which dogs were suitable for breeding. I *think* what the "honor fight" term is trying to suggest is that these islanders would not put a valued working animal in a fight to the death. I'm not comfortable or happy about this cruel part of the presa's history, but dog fighting and killing strange dogs is definitely part of presa's history (the presa's earliest officially recorded use was to hunt and kill stray dogs) and the present day presa (an inclination toward dog aggression is part of the breed description). I'm also not comfortable with wording that sounds like this sort of fighting was somehow less cruel than some other sort of fighting. Once again, however, the "honor fight" thing is right out of the sources, verbatim. I agree that they appear to be weasel words - but what can you do when the best available sources use weasel words?


 * The "earth dog" or "dog of the land" parts are, you guessed it, also straight from the sources. I can't provide any insight other than to say that these other types of dogs are part of the presa's history and they are definitely not terriers and references to "earth dogs" is, indeed, confusing - particularly in the original source. Terrier type "earth dogs" and island "earth dogs" are not the same thing, I don't think - just terms similar enough to be confusing.


 * Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is this: 1) blatantly false information about the presa's history is abundant and many breeders don't have even a cursory understanding of that history 2) good information is most definitely out there and if you explore some of the sources (particularly the Curto and elpresa.com references) I think all of your questions and disputes will be cleared up 3) very often when there's a shortage of information for us English speakers, it's because translations are poor or completely unavailable - so if you know Spanish and are interested in getting the presa's history straight, you'd definitely be doing a great service by getting acquainted with the source material in it's original language and lending your insights. Frangible (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazing stereotype of Canary Island residents
As if they all support dog fighting! "Canary Islanders consider these fights "honor fights" and not the sole purpose of the animal."63.193.144.79 (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "considerED" would be more appropriate in tense? Anyway, here's some commentary on what these "honor fights" were: http://www.elpresa.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25312 Frangible (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Usage of "Dogo" in Breed Name
The FCI breed name is "Dogo Canario" - not "Dogo de Presa Canario" - so your latest edit is incorrect. That said, we should tread lightly on the subject of the various names for the breed(s) as this is a matter of great debate among fanciers and a can of worms that I, personally, am not inclined to open.Frangible (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)