This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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 Talk Contributions 23:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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) .
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)
Excellent point. Perhaps your comments could be the basis of the necessary section? Wachholder0 04:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
Shouldn't there be some mention of the Diane Whipple case? Asarelah 11:26, 1 August 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)
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 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
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 - Alison ☺ 06:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
Here is the disputed section as it stands, any comments or changes to make it more neutral and less sensational are welcome.
The breed has come under recent scrutiny with the Presa being linked to attacks on humans. Media and public interest in the breed increased in 2001 when Diane Whipple of San Francisco, California was attacked and killed by two Presa Canario/Mastiff hybrid dogs in the hallway of her apartment building. Additionally, in 2006 a Presa Canario fatally mauled a Florida woman. The woman was the dog's owner and was giving the dog a bath when it attacked. Police responding to the emergency felt threatened by the dog and shot and killed it.
- 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 193.120.219.202 ( talk) 08:25, August 21, 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)
{{
editprotected}}
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/?title=Talk:Perro_de_Presa_Canario&diff=151977468&oldid=151908828 http://en.wikipedia.org/?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/?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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
2 cents, R. Baley 21:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 [2]). 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 [3]. 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 [4] [5], pulling scooters [6] and participaing in agility [7] and dock diving competitions [8]. Frangible 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. [9] Rklawton 20:50, 21 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? -- AStanhope 20:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone please add the following category to this breed, I cannot edit due to protection +tag. Chessy999 10:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Has everyone lost interest in this or what? PresaDog 15:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Metric measurements? 58.6.92.29 01:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
[13]El Perro de Presa Canario - By Clemente Reyes Santana
[14]Interview with Mr. Asensio - By Luis Lozano
[15] Authentic Perro de Presa Canario - By Sergio Aguiro
[16]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)
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 (
[BOE – Boletin Oficial del Estado).
The original
[Real 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
[Real Decree 558/2001): the
[RSCE] and the
[FCE]. 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
[Real 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.
[An 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
[Real 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)
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)
... yet again, for exactly the same reasons it was protected two months back. I guess nothing has been resolved here - Alison ❤ 15:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
{{ 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.
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)
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's proposal to ban importing this breed seems relevant to this article. [17] Would anyone care to propose a brief paragraph about this news item? Rklawton 21:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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 Talk Contributions 23:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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) .
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)
Excellent point. Perhaps your comments could be the basis of the necessary section? Wachholder0 04:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
Shouldn't there be some mention of the Diane Whipple case? Asarelah 11:26, 1 August 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)
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 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
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 - Alison ☺ 06:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
Here is the disputed section as it stands, any comments or changes to make it more neutral and less sensational are welcome.
The breed has come under recent scrutiny with the Presa being linked to attacks on humans. Media and public interest in the breed increased in 2001 when Diane Whipple of San Francisco, California was attacked and killed by two Presa Canario/Mastiff hybrid dogs in the hallway of her apartment building. Additionally, in 2006 a Presa Canario fatally mauled a Florida woman. The woman was the dog's owner and was giving the dog a bath when it attacked. Police responding to the emergency felt threatened by the dog and shot and killed it.
- 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 193.120.219.202 ( talk) 08:25, August 21, 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)
{{
editprotected}}
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/?title=Talk:Perro_de_Presa_Canario&diff=151977468&oldid=151908828 http://en.wikipedia.org/?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/?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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
2 cents, R. Baley 21:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 [2]). 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 [3]. 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 [4] [5], pulling scooters [6] and participaing in agility [7] and dock diving competitions [8]. Frangible 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. [9] Rklawton 20:50, 21 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? -- AStanhope 20:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone please add the following category to this breed, I cannot edit due to protection +tag. Chessy999 10:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Has everyone lost interest in this or what? PresaDog 15:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Metric measurements? 58.6.92.29 01:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
[13]El Perro de Presa Canario - By Clemente Reyes Santana
[14]Interview with Mr. Asensio - By Luis Lozano
[15] Authentic Perro de Presa Canario - By Sergio Aguiro
[16]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)
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 (
[BOE – Boletin Oficial del Estado).
The original
[Real 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
[Real Decree 558/2001): the
[RSCE] and the
[FCE]. 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
[Real 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.
[An 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
[Real 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)
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)
... yet again, for exactly the same reasons it was protected two months back. I guess nothing has been resolved here - Alison ❤ 15:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
{{ 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.
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)
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's proposal to ban importing this breed seems relevant to this article. [17] Would anyone care to propose a brief paragraph about this news item? Rklawton 21:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)