Talk:Presa Canario/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Someone vs. External Links

The link to the ElPresa.com Forum keep being deleted, for no reasons, as if there are the Dogo forum in the links, also the ElPresa forum should be there. Or otherwise provide a valid reason for dropping it. We have thousands of posts and articles in english and spanish, partecipation of spanish breeders which have a lot of experience with the breed, a lot of content to share with our guests, like 4.000 pictures hosted on the forum. I do not see why our Community cannot stay in that section. ~becerillo

This problem continues. There is someone out there who keeps deleting any reference to elpresa.com. Interestingly, the last attack was explained with this "Questional Experience of the author" I address this next paragraph to the one or ones who are responsible for this:

Who are you, and what did you mean when you said "Questional Experience of the author"? First of all, dictionary.com returns no results for "questional", but I am assume you meant "questionable". Is thatcorrect? Second, it is not clear who you are, and editing without identifying yourself ironically makes anything YOU say or do questionable. Third, please name "the author" you are talking about more clearly. Fourth, if you are saying that elpresa is not a good authority, what do you know about them that I do not?

The next paragraph is addressed to bercillo, the editor who created this section of the talk page.

First, I assume that, when you said "for no reasons", you meant "for no good reason". The sockpuppeteers must have a reason. At this point, I don't know what that reason is, but assume it must exist. You seem to have some clue. I am interested in your opinion about this subject, and those of anyone else who has a theory or suggestion about this problem.

Next. Please explain more clearly what you meant when you said "as if there are the Dogo forum in the links, also the ElPresa forum should be there". I think you meant "si hay el foro Dogo en los links, tambien el elPresa foro debe estar alli". I think this because what you have written doesn't make sense unless I translate it word for word to Spanish. If that is so, I would like to edit that sentence to say "If the Dogo forum is in the links, then the elPresa forum should be there too". Or better yet "..if the Dogo forum can be there, why not the elpresa forum?". What do you think? Also, what exactly did you mean when you said "the Dogo forum"?

Next, I would like to thank bercillo and eveyone who has beeen undoing sockpuppet attacks on the elpresa forum reference links. What do you all know about this matter, and what options do you suggest?

I believe Mr Bungle is removing the External Links section because it's just a list of links - not cites. I also think, after some thought, that he's correct in doing so - those links are really good information, but should be worked into the article and cited if you want to include them. Mr Bungle also doesn't know that he's inserted himself right in the middle of the "dogo=presa/dogo!=presa" argument - which underscores that we really need to come together to document the "schism" in the article. Regardless of which side you happen to agree with, you can't deny that anyone looking to the article for information should know that there are considerable differences of opinion and the facts concerning those differences should be presented neutrally. The trick will be to contribute without including your particular agenda. Anyone inclined to edit needs to stop being lazy about it and just sign up for an account so that we can carry on a discussion. Frangible (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I did it because Wikipedia is not just a collection of links to various other websites, especially people adding their own websites to try and advertise/promote them. What should and should not be linked is available at Wikipedia:External links. Articles should have few or no external links. I have absolutely no problem with people adding to the article with good information from other websites and citing it appropriately (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources, i.e. no forums). I agree with Frangible that people are being lazy and are just adding links to other websites. Spamming the page with numerous links to the same website is not appropriate and they will be removed. Mr Bungle | talk 04:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW... Basically the best (only?) sources of English language articles with some depth, authority and legitimacy (particularly where the history of the breed is concerned) are the elpresa, dogocanarioclub and Curto sites. Curto, in particular, is one of the fathers of the (reconstructed) breed and using his writings as a reference is somewhat analogous to citing Herr Doberman, I would argue. The catch with each of these sites is that there's definitely some partisanship going on - even Curto has his own axe to grind. So as we, hopefully, move forward with new additions to the article, other editors won't immediately dismiss these sites as sources. That's my only concern with pulling those links. They're not like a bunch of "Joe the Breeder" sites that are just there for self promotion - they're definitely appropriate as sources. The drive-by editing of those links is just a reflection of the ongoing dogo/presa feud.Frangible (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

He did it again. Mr. Bungle, if your arguement against the links holds water, please go to Old English Sheepdog or any other breed article and remove their links. If what you are saying is true, it will apply to any other breed article as much as it does this one. How do you explain the fact that they all have them, even beagle which is supposed to be amoung the best articles of any kind in the whole of Wikipedia? It makes no sense that you keep doing that here and not everywhere else.Chrisrus (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not initially remove all the links (well now there is only the link out to open directory), and I already explained why I did it above as per policy on external links. Beagle is perfect example of how external links should look, this page is now the same. As you have noticed on wiklpedia, other stuff exists but I'm not going to change every other page because it would probably take too long; but somes pages I will, such as this one. Anyway I hope I have made it clearer for you. Cheers - Mr Bungle | talk 22:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well fine, you've done as I suggested and noticed that all the good breed sites had links and copied the format and we'll leave it at that. Actually, I liked it a lot better when there were direct links to just a few of the very best links vetted by us here to ensure that weren't breeders or anyone out to make a buck but very good informative sites representing several of the most important perspectives on important contravertial issues. Now, you've got a link to a search engine that has every link under the sun on the topic, including most of the ones we would never have allowed on the article for the very reasons you kept assuming we didn't understand and kept lecturing us about. You do know that leaving links to search engine results is specifially disrecommended, don't you? Well, nevermind that though, if it's good enough for beagle and good enough for german shephard and those are agreed to be examples of very best wikipedia can do, well fine then, who am I to judge? Rest assured, it's on my watchlist and no one will come in here and lop it off or mess with it without a fight. I've a bit of the Presa in me too, I fancy myself a good watchdog. I concider the matter closed. "Cheers". Chrisrus (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to assume good faith and explain the relevant policy on external links to you and the anon editors, but I assume you and everyone else didn't read it as links just kept being added back in. I'm thinking you probably still haven't read it as it states: The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the [Template: dmoz] template. It is not just a search engine. Additionally it wasn't very constructive to remove the hidden external links guideline which lets new editors know the rules straight off the bat. Sorry about being seen as "lecturing" but how many times do I have to show you the relevant policy before you understand. I tend to agree that it did look ok with 2-3 good links listed and that's how I previously left it, but people kept adding crap pages (mostly ones that didn't work[1], were in a foregin language,[2], had little useful information [3], or were already linked in the footnotes and had numerous links to the same website[4]), so the best option is to just have the open directory linked as once again: Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Anyway I'm glad the issue has been laid to rest and I look forward to you editing the page and keeping it in check in the future.- Mr Bungle | talk 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Prey dog or catch dog?

If you look in a Spanish/English dictionary, you will indeed find "prey" as a translation for "presa". However, as you know if you speak Spanish, in cases such as "le tomaron presa" it means "they captured him/took him prisoner or custody," rather "they preyed upon him", which would mean "they killed and ate him". The term "perro de presa" refers to a dog that catches and holds the quarry alive, and the term for such a dog in modern American English for this is "Catch dog". "Prey dog" is not a standard English term, but there is the term "... of prey" as in "bird of prey" which means "one who kills and eats", because "prey", as you know if you speak English, is something you kill and eat. Calling the dog a "prey dog" is using a litteral translation (although not as litteral as "dog of prey") the effect of which on the reader is that it means a type of dog which is either preyed upon or which preys upon something, which, unless you want to give the impression that the Spanish name implies that the dog is supposed to kill or be killed, isn't the best translation in this case. As you know if you speak Spanish, the term "perro de presa" doesn't imply killing as "prey" does; it implies a dog that grabs and holds, that captures. The English language term for this is "Catch dog". So pending further discussion, I am undoing the last edit. Chrisrus (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Temperament Section Slated for Deletion

I am going to delete all except the first paragraph of the temperament section. None of the rest is cited, and much of it is questionable. I like to tolerate uncited stuff if it's not highly questionable, but this is. We respect questionable stuff if it's cited, because then anyone who objects has to go check the citation. Unless something is done, I'm removing all but the first paragraph of the temperament section. Chrisrus (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and cut all the uncited stuff out. Was I wrong? If you think so, let me know and I'll undo pending discussion. Chrisrus (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The lifespan of the breed

http://roguekennelsuk.piczo.com/faqs?cr=6&linkvar=000044 http://www.puppydogplanet.com/perro-de-presa-canario.html http://www.thedogpark.com/articles/dog-breeds/pit-bull-breeds/perro-de-presa-canario.php

The lifespan appears to 8-12 years. This is echoed amongst various sources online as illustrated above and can be confirmed by a quick web search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.161.117 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

American Temperament Test Society Statistics for Presa/Dogo Canario vs All Breeds Tested

OK, I figure I'll continue my argument the "simple" way by addressing Rklawton's request for hard statistics on behavior (it's actually quite difficult to find legit published research on the topic of dog behavior vis-a-vis specific breeds, but I managed).

This paper groups ATTS test results by "breed category" (working, sporting, hound, etc): http://www.canineresearch.net/DowdAPBTbehaviormanuscriptV4format.pdf

What it says, in a nutshell, is out of a total of 25726 individual dogs (of all breeds) tested, 20848 (81.04%) received a "passing" score.

The ATTS publishes statistics for individual breeds at their Web site: http://www.atts.org/

They list the Dogo Canario and Presa Canario as separate breeds (take that, PresaDog).

Out of two Dogo Canarios tested, both (100%) received a "passing" score: http://www.atts.org/stats3.html

Out of 14 Presa Canarios tested, 13 (92.8%) recieved a "passing" score: http://www.atts.org/stats6.html

If you consider the Presa Canario and Dogo Canario to be the same breed, 15 out of 16 dogs (93.8%) received a passing score.

So the science seems to indicate that Presa Canarios, on the whole, tend to be of a significantly more stable temperament than many other "common" dog breeds (Golden Retriever - 83.8%, Toy Poodle - 81.6%, etc) as well as other "rare" working breeds of similar size and physical capability (Fila Brasileiro - 75%, Cane Corso - 77.9%, Neapolitan Mastiff - 54.5%, etc)

That said, I don't believe statistics and or science makes the whole argument, and I will continue to make my case from home, this evening (look out, my boss is coming). Frangible 20:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is also a court ruling in Alabama that was landmark that dealt BSL a serious blow in 2002 because it stated that there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more dangerous then another simply because of its breed.

[5] Dog attacks and maulings are generally a failure of the owner to control their dog or get proper training. PresaDog 00:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Drivel and white noise! Sorry. First, the sample size is disastrously small. Second, the ATTS summaries by breed cannot be used to compare breeds due a HUGE ISSUE called SELF-SELECTION BIAS. Basically, a voluntary, paid for test where the variable of interest can easily be seen to at least partially determine an individual's tendency to be in the sample is typically highly biased and all rankings and comparisons are worthless. The proper study of data TAKES YEARS TO LEARN. It is not all common sense you learned from college or high school level science classes. Do not kid yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.68.79 (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

ATTS test stats

I see an ongoing struggle over the ATTS temperament stats. These are worthless for interbreed comparison because of self-selection bias. They can only tell you something about an individual dog tested, not about breed differences. This is because people volunteer for the test and pay to take it, and it is logical that their animal's temperament as assessed by them will heavily influence their probability of volunteering/paying. So, the cream is skimmed off all breeds. This will tend to make all breeds score similarly and for rankings to be meaningless and often due to random sampling error. If you did not see this OBVIOUS data characteristic, please think how qualified you are to question my pronouncement now. It takes years to learn to analyze data, and it is not intuitive or common sense. Using supposed "common sense" will invariably lead you into a handful of common traps. The ATTS stats are pushed by breeds that are obviously dangerous because of the data artifact caused by non-representative sampling elevating the temperament of their breed of interest.

Further, the ATTS test was originally designed to test for suitability for schutzhund work, and more dogs flunk for timidity than aggression. The handful of dogs that fail due to aggression is very small, which demonstrates the creaming effect of the bias I brought up. Further, breed communities with image problems actively game the test by talking to each other over who should and should not take it. This is at least part of the public record on pit bull forums.

Lastly, all breeds are judged with their breed standard in mind and so the criteria for judging varies by breed.

All in all, it should be obvious why the ATTS is inappropriate here.

Incidentally, I contacted the ATTS org to tell them all this and how their stats are abused. They were totally oblivious to any data problems,and were irked that I would step in the way of their main support mechanism (dangerous breed communities using their results as fake silver bullets in arguments). They stated that they were currently looking for a statistician to analyze their data pro bono to look for breed differences. When I told them of the fatal bias their raw data has, they were not content to just use the test as a way to analyze individual dogs and cut off communication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.68.79 (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Attacks against People.

While this breed has been thrust into the spotlight by two high profile cases involving unfortunate deaths, it is wrong to characterize this breed (or any other) by these isolated cases.

Why is it that breeds such as the German Shepherd, Rottweiler and APBT have killed upwards of 70 people in several decades, but THIS breed is the one that seems to constantly get edits about the two deaths it has been involved with?

Why is the focus specifically on this breed when the facts do not support it being more dangerous than other breeds where these type of cases are not mentioned?

Not only do I, as a breeder find this is a bad thing for my beloved dogs, it helps to attract an unseemly element to the breed, increasing the difficulty responsible breeders have finding good homes for these dogs.

This is an encyclopedia article, not a place to generate positive publicity for your breed. The attacks against humans are notable and widely publicized. Your comparison with german shepards etc. is not very strong, since these dogs are many, many hundreds or perhaps thousands of times more common around the world. I agree with you that this is an unfortunate situation, but whitewashing is not the answer. By the way, the pit bull article does indeed mention their bad reputation in the first paragraph. Wachholder0 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This oft-remove section containing two anecdotal stories isn't appropriate for this article. They are illustrations with only an inferred point. The point, that these animals are sometimes dangerous to humans is not (yet) supported by any reliable source so far presented. In short, we need a published study on this animal's temperament before we can go ahead and insert illustrations about this temperament. If/when so, the section would read something like this:

"(Study name) by (researcher) published in (reliable source) has found this animal three times more likely than a (pick a breed) to attack a human. Notable cases of such attacks include (anecdotal, notable instances)."

The current edits presenting only two anecdotal cases leaves the reader to draw unsupported conclusions. In short, this approach violates our policy on original research. Rklawton 18:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure that you're going to find anything particularly useful in the way of actual published research regarding how "likely to attack a human" a PdPC is (APBTs and their close relatives, perhaps - but that's a whole other can of worms/edit war) - but I'm willing to do my best to dig up what I can on that topic. That said, I can and will also dig up authoritative references regarding the breed's "hard" temperament. The PdPC, in both it's historical and "recovered" version is, first and foremost, a working breed - and the catch and guard work for which it was intended means that it definitely is not maltese-like in temperament.

That temperament, along with it's large size and physical capability, requires the utmost competence and responsibility from an owner - this point is made over an over in the various writings on the breed but really can't be repeated often enough. I think more should also go into the Temperament section as this breed is one that is supposed to be defined, first and foremost, by it's temperament. The modern, "recoverd" version of the PdPC actually lends itself to good sourcing as most of the folks actively involved in reestablishing the breed ("preseros") are still alive and many are prolific writers - it's akin to having direct access to the commentary of Herr Doberman himself.

This really needs to get sorted out in some constructive way so that the various editors participating on this topic can get back to more important edit wars surrounding coat color, breed status, organizations, etc. Frangible 20:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are published warnings/instructions/cautions etc by reliable sources regarding the animal's temperament, then those should be attributed and included in the article. Rklawton 21:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The sources under temperament don't indicate that this dog has ever been known to attack humans. It does suggest this dog isn't good for a novice dog owner, but that hardly supports the illustrations provided. As a result, the dead human illustrations provided seem jarringly out of place. Rklawton 04:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. How many Americans are killed by dog every year? What breeds kill Americans? Are they poodles? Chihuahuas? Chocolate labs? I am an absolute advocate of every single fatal dog mauling being reported by breed in the Wikipedia. If somebody can find me a list I will be happy to disseminate it throughout the Wikipedia. In the meantime, we know that in the 21st Century, one out of thirty fatal maulings by dogs in the United States involves a Presa Canario. To omit this - when it is indeed properly sourced - represents a strong POV - that which says these dogs couldn't possibly hurt anyone. --AStanhope 06:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the availability of attack studies, there is no reason not to take the approach I've recommended. Fatalities are not the only indication of a dangerous breed. There are also mutilations as well as non-mutilating bites that require medical care to consider. I found one such study on my first search.[6] Rklawton 13:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I read the entire opinion piece that you sourced. It is not a reliable source and in fact draws some nonsensical conclusions. I neither know about nor agree nor disagree with your philosophy, such as it may be, but the source you provided is not acceptable. Since you suggest that attack studies are widely available, I suggest you find at least one that is official or at the least subject to peer review. I think a reliable source is indicated here for any claim given the controversy surrounding the breed and protective breeds in general. Ms. Clo (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

By Annie Gowen, Updated: Thursday, April 4, 12:02 AM

A 5-year-old Charles County girl was in critical condition late Wednesday after a vicious dog attack, the Charles County Sheriff’s Office said Wednesday.

Police said the girl was in the care of her mother’s boyfriend when she wandered unsupervised into the back yard of her home in the 8600 block of Billingsley Road in the Waldorf area. Police who were called to the scene around 6 p.m. found the little girl lying naked on the ground and covered in wounds.

“The dogs had ripped the clothes right off of her,” said Charles County Sheriff’s spokeswoman Diane Richardson. “She was suffering from multiple dog bites, lacerations and other injuries on her face, neck and body.”

The girl was airlifted to Children’s National Medical Center in the District, where she was listed in critical condition.

Richardson said the girl and her mother had recently moved into the man’s home, and he kept three dogs: a bulldog and two Presa Canarios (a Spanish guard dog) — in a kennel in the back yard. It was unclear which or how many of the dogs were involved in the attack, Richardson said.

“We have a lot to do in terms of the investigation to try and find out what happened,” she said.

The home’s back yard has a chain-link fence and a privacy fence in addition to the fenced-in dog kennel, Richardson said. She added that investigators do not yet know whether the dogs were in their kennel when the attack occurred, or loose in the back yard.

Charles County animal control officers removed the dogs from the home, and investigators were trying to determine whether there had been any animal-control complaints at the address before Wednesday evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.5.215.19 (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Why the Diane Whipple Attack Doesn't Belong Here

First, to address what's obviously going to be the first accusation if you disagree with my contributions: I am not a breeder and have absolutely no financial stake in this whatsoever. My personal experience with and "stake" in the presa breed is based solely on my family's ownership of a rescue dog. My "expertise" (or lack thereof) in the breed is rooted in a consuming desire to get to the straight truth on matters regarding this extremely polarizing and sensationalized (and wonderful) dog. Oh, and for what it's worth, I've been in the publishing profession for over 15 years. But I hate even having to bring any of this up as it does nothing other than address baseless conjecture about who contributes to this article. Judge contributions on their own merit and enter the fray with the right attitude - and don't be a dork throwing around unfounded personal accusations.

There are many "rare" dog breeds that have been involved in fatalities in the past decade - off the top of my head, I can tell you about separate fatalities involving boerboels, cane corsos and dogo argentinos. So the argument that the presa, as a rare breed, is responsible for a disproportionate number of fatalities is a fallacy. If you don't believe me, google.

The reason behind the notoriety surrounding the presa breed is this: The trial surrounding the Whipple tragedy was a circus involving tales of Pelican Bay lifers, cop killers and Aryan Nations muckety-mucks, underwear models-turned-prosecutors, threesomes, bestiality, adult adoptions and a whole bucket of similar Geraldo-bait. Additionally, some serious legal and social issues where brought to the surface as well - such as a gay/lesbian partner's ability to bring a wrongful death suit and a judge overturning a jury's guilty verdict.

So what does this have to do with the presa canario? Well, it was a rare breed with an extremely fuzzy history and background that nobody ever heard of before this tragedy. It's a big dog that's often brindle, with cropped ears and, as the cliche says, "looks like a pitbull on steroids" - in other words, all the parts you need to create a perfect, racist-gaybashing-landshark-like animal villain to take the center ring in this sensationalistic circus.

So while it might be appropriate to mention the breed in articles addressing the Whipple tragedy specifically, or in lists of fatal dog attacks by breed, it's not appropriate to include "attacks on humans" or other, similar sensational muck. (I'm just getting around to signing this now as I didn't know how to do so when I originally posted)Frangible 03:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I'd like to respond to this post, if I may. I feel that your post, bringing the relevance of the "Diane Whipple Attack" into question, is baseless and the Diane Whipple Attack is completely relevant. To begin, I am going to disregard your opening paragraph as it provides no substance to the matter, but serves the purpose of making you a credible contributor.

• In the Second Paragraph, your assertion is correct: Presa Canarios make up a small, but noteworthy, amount of dog attacks. A study conducted by "Dogsbite.org" finds that, between 1982-2013, Presa Canario's were responsible for 2.36% of attacks causing bodily harm (105 attacks causing bodily harm by Presa Canarios/4444 attacks causing bodily harm by all breeds of dogs)and 2.78% of deaths (15 deaths caused by Presa Canarios/539 deaths caused by all breeds of dogs). However, this next point is not to be overlooked - When ranking the frequency of dog attacks causing bodily harm, Presa Canarios are responsible for the third most(only behind Pit Bulls and Rottweilers). I feel that you are trying to dismiss the latter because of the former - that is to say, arguing that because Presa Canarios make up a small proportion of attacks, they should not be regarded as dangerous. A possible reason that they make up a small percent of attacks is because Pit Bull ownership is far more frequent than Presa Canario ownership. I believe (and this is merely speculation) that if Presa Canario ownership was on par with Pit Bull ownership, proportionate attacks from Presa Canarios would be higher than they are now.
• Your attempt to dismiss the notoriety of the Diane Whipple Attack as being a product of her sexuality is utterly disgusting and absurd, and (quite frankly) reveals the bias that you tried to hide in your opening paragraph. Here are the facts that are not disputed: these dogs were raised to be violent in temperament (chained and intended to be part of a dog-fighting racket), and that the dogs had violently attacked Whipple without provocation. I don't know how these facts would not bolster the attack's notoriety, but Whipple's sexuality and Knoller and Noel's association to the Aryan Brotherhood would. I admit Knoller and Noel's association serves as an accessory to the attack's notoriety, however to say that they are the principle cause for the notoriety is ludicrous.

For that reason, I believe that the Diane Whipple Attack is relevant and should not be removed. I invite anyone to accept or reject my comments.Mdifranco (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Mdifranco

Temperament

I would like to know if the people who are attacking the accuracy of the temperment section have actually ever met a Presa. Mine is one of 4 dogs, and the youngest, and he has never been anything but an absolute love. He is the sweetest dog I own, and often will roll over and let the smallest dog in the house, a 12 lb PUG, jump all over him, eat out of his food bowl, and take toys from him. Likewise, he has been nothing but the picture of calm when around strangers. I took great care to socialize him from the age of 8 weeks, and now, he will gently lick even a young child (as young as 1 1/2), whom he does not know. Everyone he meets comments on what a wonderful dog he is. People should keep in mind that it is OWNERS who create vicious dogs; this is not a breed who is inherently mean or aggressive. I would beware of the breeder, not the breed. Of COURSE "killer" dogs are going to make the news- a sweet, loving pet is not newsworthy. In addition, the two dogs who killed the woman in California were apparently not even purebred Presas, AND had been trained to fight. Once again, blame the owners for creating vicious creatures which tarnish the reputation of an otherwise wonderful breed. For every instance of a Presa injuring someone, there are many more examples of other breeds doing so, such as Pit bull terriers, Doberman pinchers, or Rottweilers (and again, I do not believe that these dogs are innately aggressive either). Yet somehow, it is the Presa that people seem to fear. Take the time to get to know the breed, rather than basing your opinion on what you read in the news.

Anectdotal evidence. Meaningless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.50.20 (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

>>>"meaningless". What a dismissive twit. The writer makes an obvious point...it is the OWNER who guides the temperament. Anyone who has even had the slightest interaction with any canine can tell you that.

The temperament section of this page is a mess. There is little doubt that most people that have heard of the Presa Canario know of it because of the high profile attacks on humans. The temperament section tacitly acknowledges this by mentioning that they are "highly protective" of their master and human family. "Protective" in this case is a euphamism for "aggresive towards strangers." Under Trainability there is the statement that "Due to its aggression, some insurance companies will not issue policies to the owners of Presas." There again we have evidence that the general public regards these animals as aggressive. We also have the Diane Whipple case in 2001 as well as a new case in Florida where the *owner* of a Presa was killed while bathing the animal. How's that for "bonding" with the master? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.128.91 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, but you try getting insurance on a riced-up Jap car. Say you're 19. Think you'll get it? No. Is it the car, or in this case the dog, who's unsafe? No, it's the owners who are responsible for any perceived danger. John Nevard 04:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Face it, folks, the Presa is not widely considered to have a mild temperament. Quite the opposite, in fact. Breeders and owners may know differently, but they cannot refute the basic fact that most regard these animals as being dangerous and aggresive animals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.128.91 (talk • contribs) .

I've removed the statement: "Despite its notoriety, the Presa Canario is not a breed known for its man-aggression" because it is self-contradictory. If the Presa Canario is not known for man-aggression then it would not have notoriety. Clearly it has gained a reputation for aggression towards humans, even if this reputation is undeserved. One could perhaps make the case that the Presa has gained undeserved notoriety by comparing known attacks to other more aggresive breeds. But now that the Presa has gained notoriety it will require some solid facts and numbers to refute an inaccurate perception by the general public. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.128.91 (talk • contribs) .

I've met those dogs for the first time during a dog show in The Netherlands, they were owned by Belgians who bred them, they told me that the dogs were protective towards family and not very fond of strangers. They also told me that males are LESS agressive then female Dogo's. I've pet them and they weren't agressive towards me or my girlfriend, actually the male dog was very friendly and didn't growl or bark. But they kept their dogs wel separated from the other show dogs. So I disagree with the "mild-temper" story but they are not mindless killers like Fila's

Here's another way of looking at it. If I raise a wolf from a pup and socialize it - and it grows up to be a nice wolfie that plays well with others, would it be OK to edit out any references to wolves possibly being dangerous to humans, too? Or are there traits that, if studied and documented, we should go ahead and publish even if it doesn't apply to my particular animal? In short, anecdotal evidence one way or the other makes for a pretty illustration, but we simply can't ignore reliable studies. Rklawton 18:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My neutered male labrador was attacked by a male Presa Canario in a day care setting. The incident is consistent with the reports that Presas are prone to not tolerate non-submissive dogs of the same sex. The bite required stitches. The day care management defended the Presa, continues to say they have never had a problem with him despiste the attack, did not offer to isolate the Presa from my dog, did not offer to pay my vet bills, did not confirm that they had reported the incident to the owner of the Presa, and needless to say, has not expelled the Presa from daycare despite the attack. They even suggested that maybe the Presa "hadn't meant to bite hard" but that my dog may have pulled away, causing the injury. We no longer take our dog to this facility. I agree with the edit above that anecdotal evidence of sweet Presa's does not negate the evidence that they are associated with more vicious attacks than most breeds and should be treated accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.174.37.50 (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"My male labrador was attacked by a male Presa Canario in a day care setting. The incident is consistent with the reports that Presas are prone to not tolerate non-submissive dogs of the same sex." -Maybe you should just teach your dog to submit to more dominant dogs. He's going to submit to the presa, that's not his choice. His only choice is whether he wants to submit on his own or wait until the presa makes him submit. You can't fault the presa breed because your lab made a poor choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troponin (talk • contribs) 04:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So if your dog is insufficiently submissive in my dog's point of view, it's your dogs fault if my dog attacks him, even kills him. My dog can't be blamed. I can just say "well, it's Troponin's dog's fault; my dog didn't think he was being submissive enough. Troponin's dog should have begun groveling on sight of Chrisrus's dog, and he didn't grovel sufficiently for Chrisrus's dog's taste, so my dog can't be blamed for killing Troponin's dog. Have I got that straight? Chrisrus (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How can you believe your critical opinions about dog ownership as fact when you are at the same time under the impression that day care settings are an ideal place for your dog. Do you have time for that high maintenance and likely insufferable lab, or that oh so evil presa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.158.104 (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Contents of History section is irrelevant

It says nothing about the breed. It's just a story about some Roman/British dogs. I've seen it elsewhere too. 2.110.44.130 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Breed history

There's no evidence of Spanish breeds being used in this formerly performance and game bred dog. The English have a history of breeding fighting dogs that the Spanish do not. This does not mean that Spanish, and other European, breeds did not also serve utilitarian purposes, but none of the calibre Bull terriers did. No where has it been suggested by anoyone of repute that non-English dogs were used. The site formerly offerred that the Alano was used in the Canary Dog, but the Alano was created afterwards.

Historians have no idea what war dogs the Romans used. The best guess is of a larger Mastiff type dog. The handler would have 3 or 4 dogs in leashed to each hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.45.109 (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Attacks on people

I've removed this section as its just a collection of primary news reports. Fatal dog attacks in the United States already exists and we don't list fatalities for every breed like on the St. Bernard (dog) or on Labrador Retriever articles, who according to that list, have objectively killed more people. Per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences): A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a scientific fact or figure, nor should they be considered when describing what aspects of a field the relevant experts consider interesting, surprising, or controversial. As far as I know, the most comprehensive review of dog bite studies and the role breed plays in them was conducted by the AVMA in this literature review which states breed is a poor sole predictor of aggressiveness. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The Diana Whipple murder is what brought this otherwise obscure and rare breed to public attention, and perhaps deserves mention. It's not an RS issue, by any means. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Could we link to the Death of Diane Whipple article in the related section? PearlSt82 (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It also might be worthwhile to note that many articles refer to the dog as a mastiff-mix - one of the issues of tracking incidents like this by breed (especially when reported in media sources). PearlSt82 (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what those links prove, but Death of Diane Whipple would be a good addition. We don't need the other stories, certainly. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now added this to the See Also. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

About the photo

Is that photo from a pure breed presa canario?. However I'm not an expert but I'm actually living in the Canary Islands where those dogs came from and seems a little more solid than that

see the following for references (in spanish) http://www.irema-curto.com/presa-estandar.htm http://www.ifca.unican.es/~camacho/dogs/breeds/spain/pc-std.html

Signed and dated for archive purposes only. William Harris • (talk) • 10:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Accurate history

I have posted an accurate history of the breed. It is based on the writings of Clemente Reyes Santana and Manuel Curto Gracia,Manuel Bethecourt,and Preseros on Gran Canaria and Spain. I have studied the Presa Canario breed for 14 years. I have extensive contacts on the Islands and mainland Spain.There are many "histories" of the Perro de Presa Canario. This is the straight scoop. June 24, 2006. David.

Also, the article states that the breed is primarily calm and "noble", but then under Training: "Due to its aggression ...". Which is it? "Due to its perceived aggression ...", perhaps? I really don't know, but this lacks basic consistency. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.65.248.101 (talk • contribs) .

I agree that the article should say "due to its perceived agression." As the writer submitted earlier on this page, I have bred and own two presa canarios who are extremely calm and good natured.

Signed and dated for archive purposes only. William Harris • (talk) • 10:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)