Not only two different Breed Standards

Written by Paolo Consolandi

Saturday, 01 November 2008

Download PDF file Discuss the article on the Forums Not long ago we were discussing again in our Internet [1] forum, an old and cyclic affair: the differences between the Presa and Dogo Canario, on this specific occasion referring to the differences between the two breed standards. I publish herewith my reflections on the subject without any conceit, or pretending they are exhaustive or a source of absolute truth. On the contrary with sincere humbleness, they simply reflect my ideas – the ideas of an aficionado of the Presa Canario breed, with the full right to express his own opinions. At the same time, I write them here in the hope they may be useful for some of the enthusiasts who read these pages, so that they understand that these differences between Presa Canario and Dogo Canario really exist, even if some may appear clear and others less so. I’d like to start by pointing out that probably like many other breed enthusiasts, I do not want to reduce the Presa Canario vs. Dogo Canario question to mere orthographic differences, even though I understand they are also important. As a matter of fact the first, most important difference between the two breeds is the one which is inside the head of the breeder and of the dog owner or enthusiast: there are more crucial things than a breed standard – even if this is a guide at every moment, this is clear – and I herewith make reference to the “breed concept” which is the basis of the same breed written standard that is determined as a consequence. In the case of the Presa Canario we can state that this concept means to inherit a breed which we receive from our ancestors as functional before anything else – otherwise it would not have  any reason to be born – and to pass it on preserving its typical characteristics. But, do not think  that if a dog shows 31% white, he is not a Presa Canario (breed standards of 1989). Or do not think that for a good Perro de Presa (catch dog) things like prognathism or missing premolars are unimportant – in spite of any breed standard we have between our hands.    We should never forget that a breed standard is an effort to define the morphological, physical and temperamental characteristics of a dog – in order to represent a population with more or less homogeneity which is identified as a breed. I am saying this as it is ok to speak about and examine the breed standard, and we will do so, but the matter is not all there. Let’s not forget from where these breed standards come. Before entering into the details of the papers we should clarify a crucial point, as there was and still  is confusion about the Breed Standard of the Presa Canario, due to the fact that in 1989    more than one was produced. And there are a good number of people who, just as they see the year of a Presa Canario breed standard – 1989 – they automatically think it is the authentic version to which the genuine aficionados of the Presa Canario make reference. But it is not all gold that shines.   More specifically there is not any doubt that the only legitimate breed standard for the Presa Canario is the one agreed between all the existing associations of that time, more precisely the Club Español del Presa Canario, Club del Perro de Presa Canario de Las Palmas, Club del Bardino Presa Canario Faycán, Manuel Curtó and Clemente Reyes Santana. This breed standard shows in the first page the phrase “Recommended by the C.E.P.C.”, and  was drawn the 21st of May 1989 through two sessions each of four hours as related in his book by the same Manuel Curtó [2]. The official breed standard, previously elaborated by the Commission of the Royal Canine Association of Spain due to the divergences between the clubs of the two islands (Tenerife and Gran Canaria), contained very obvious errors and has never been used for breeding purposes, as far as I know. Neither should one think that just because we are dealing with the breed standard of 1989 we are making reference to a state of the art, to a renaissance era of the Presa Canario. Yes, because in 1989 it was not all perfect, there were plenty of dogs with health problems, crosses, public complaints, polemics, dissatisfaction. The ones who were managing the former Club of the Presa Canario – expression of the Club of the island of Tenerife – and who have written more than one version of breed standard as “Presa Canario” (although without general agreement) are those that have then set the base of the Dogo Canario and his breed standard, this is clear and we will not forget it. So, let me repeat it, let’s not forget where the breed standards come from, who wrote and accepted them, with their respective objectives. So, to start, we definitely clarify that we are speaking about two precise breed standards. In the case of the Presa Canario the one of May 21st, 1989 – the only one upon which there was general agreement. In the case of the Dogo Canario, the F.C.I. standard n° 346 dated 3rd June, 2001. On several occasions I noticed that many Dogo Canario aficionados maintain that these differences between Presa and Dogo Canario do not exist, neither in the written standards. So, as I see it there is no other option than to start and analyze the two documents. Let me point out that the very first difference is really prominent: the denomination. As we know the Dogo Canario denomination was a requisite asked by the Federatiòn Cynologique Internationale (F.C.I.), in 2001, in order to assign the international recognition [3]. According to them – who ignore the history and origin of the Presa Canario – the word “presa” would be “politically incorrect”, as it referred to the fight between dogs. To stress such a weakness of the former breed club – unable to even protect the traditional name of its own breed – is just too easy. At the same time it is difficult to find any justification in an error that has set the base of the split between the two breeds. In its book [4], Pascual Asensi Peinado, who was a judge for the Club Español del Presa Canario and who is now “recommended judge” by the Club Español del Dogo Canario, already it warns the reader at the introduction:: “because of directives of the F.C.I. in the revision of the standards which have been done, the names of breed which are synonymous of aggressiveness or violence will not be authorized, and the word presa has been excluded”. Mr. Asensi Peinado will forgive me, but the name “perro de presa canario” it is not  synonymous with aggressiveness, or  violence – but rather with functionality – as we will see. The same author goes on and anticipates, alluding to the Ca de Bou case, that “As far as the Presa Canario in order to his incorporation to the F.C.I. it will be necessary to adopt the same or a close term, as per its morphology dogo is the most appropriated one”. But there is no reason for which a breed name should be merely an insipid description of its morphology. Despite some directors and judges of the F.C.I. and of the club del Presa Canario – now of the Dogo Canario,it is possible to demonstrate that the Dogo Canario denomination is indefensible from various points of view, before all, from an historic point of view. It is a matter of fact that the word “presa” – object of the dispute – is referring to the “catching” task. The ancient “perros de presa” were so called because they were of help in the sacrifice of the cattle. More specifically, it is pertinent to cite one of the ordinances of the Tenerife Council, that the 5th of February, 1516 writes making reference to the dogs:: "...and only untie them in order to catch the cattle". Another Agreement – in this case original of the island of Fuerteventura, of October 21st 1624 sets:"...And this is intended in respect of the dogs, of hunt and of catch (de presa)”. So, “perros de presa” as they catch (“prenden” in Spanish) the bovine cattle, as auxiliaries during their sacrifices. For these reasons the word “presa” referred to the dog can be considered as a synonymous of “perro de toro” (bull-dog). Consequently, if “perro de presa” is a politically incorrect name – as the directors of the F.C.I. claimed – they should say the same of the name of breeds like the Bulldog, the Bull Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the Bullmastiff.   As for the “fights”: well, through his ancient history these dogs were occasionally used in order "kill wild dogs" [5], a task we could define as "intra species" fight – but the word “presa” referred to the dog is not derived upon these events, this is a fact.   With the development of the modern Presa Canario the passion for the fights – “pechadas” and fights – rose considerably, to the point where one might say that some of the recent generations were bred more for this reason than in the past [6]. Anyhow, it is necessary to make some distinctions. First of all, the “properly called fights” and the “pechadas” are two different phenomena. In the first ones, which are a product of the criminal world, the money is the king and consequently, with much occurrence, dogs – of various breeds – fight till death, they want it or not. On the other side, the “pechadas” were a product of the rural side of the Canarian world, in which the owners of the catching dogs – people who used to live on the products of the field, not dog fighters – occasionally used to test the dogs to fight in order to see which was the stronger one, and when it was,the prize was a meal. They were not generally fights till exhaustion and the dogs were seldom seriously hurt. The “perro de presa” was an animal which pertained to a poor, rustic, harsh world – but where his services were motive of pride for the owner. This is what can be read in the interviews [7] of the old aficionados to the pechadas, and is the same thing which communicate the old  “Pepe el Guardiàn” from Firgas in Gran Canaria in the interview in the documentary “Senderos Islenos” [8]. The  “pechada” went on playing a role in the concept of the dog, being considered by several breeders and aficionados as a courage test in which one should measure a “perro de presa”, especially in Gran Canaria. Summing up, “properly called fights” and pechadas are and were two different phenomena, products of different worlds, and while the “properly called fights” have always had a very minor role in the world of the Presa Canario, the pechadas were crucial – for some decades – in the breeding and development of this breed. Anyhow, another consideration, even if we recognize the existence of this historical phenomena, it does not mean that it is what originated the term “perro de presa” – that as we have seen existed in the Canary Islands centuries before that the British people imported the passion for the fighting sports and their dogs. And third, we should remember that this has never been the only task fulfilled by the Presa Canario – which at the same time has been a guarding and protection dog, a dog with a great herding instinct and strongly linked with the Canarian rural world, from where he developed. Finally: it is not possible to arbitrarily associate the word “presa” to the fights of the dogs. So, first error, the history of the breed is being ignored: the catching task has been confused with that of “fight” – as a result of an erroneous interpretation of the word “presa”. Keeping the focus on the historical point of view, we must take note that while the term “perro de presa” has a known bibliographic and historic value, the same cannot be said as far as the word “dogo” is concerned, as it is not present in the historical documents of the Canary Islands which are at the base of the breed’s history. At the same time, it is also widely known that the word “dogo” has never been used by the old Canarian countrymen in order to define their catching dogs, and therefore this word has no relation to the rural and traditional Canarian world. Let’s introduce another incoherence pertaining to the name “Dogo Canario”, this time from a literal point of view. Someone pretends that as the words “dogo” and “perro de presa” are synonymous, the problem would not exist. Effectively yes, they are synonymous as various preeminent bibliographic sources can confirm [9]. But then, I do not see it as a justification, on the contrary! If the two words are literally synonymous the accusations by which the word “presa” is considered “synonymous of violence and aggressiveness” should be extended also to the word “dogo”.   And if to this we add the fact that the “dogo” word does not have any historical (traditional and bibliographic) value for the breed in the Canary Islands, that it is just the consequence of an erroneous interpretation of the “presa” word, so… what is the reason of its existence? There is no answer. The Dogo Canario denomination is indefensible also from a “political” point of view. Or at least please tell me why the Fila Brasileiro was not obliged to change the name into Dogo Brasileiro, as the term “fila” has the same meaning of the word “presa” [10].  And in this case even more, as the “fila” word makes reference to the hunting and catching activity that these dogs fulfilled not only in the subjection of the cattle, but also when they were used to track and attack the runaway slaves. A barbaric task which luckily yet belongs to history books and that this Brazilian dog shared with another breed very close to him – and to the Spanish “perros de presa” – that is the yet extinct Cuban “perro de presa”, historically known through various English-language bibliographical sources with the incorrect name “Cuban Bloodhound”. Yet, without wandering from our path, and without undervaluing from a single point of view such a noble breed like the Fila Brasileiro - which has all my sincere respect – I just see that in some cases the name was not changed in such an act of arrogance, although the meaning is analogous. Finally, I would also like to point out that – from a legal point the view – the denomination “Dogo Canario” does not exist, with all its consequences. As a matter of fact the Government of the Canary Islands with the Autonomous Law 7/1991 [11] recognizes the “perro de presa canario” as the natural symbol for the island of Gran Canaria. Then, with the Real Decree 558/2001 [12] and with the Real Decree 1557/2005 [13], the Spanish Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Alimentation recognizes the breed “Presa Canario”, without naming at any moment in the list of the Spanish breeds the “Dogo Canario” and consequently erasing any doubt about the fact: legally the “Dogo Canario” does not exist. It may exist in the head of some director of his Breed Club or in that of some F.C.I. directors – which is a private organization, it is better to remember that, as a private organization is the same Real Sociedad Canina Española [14]. Private organizations, that therefore hardly will be able to further ignore – in the same Spanish territory – the law of the country, at least without paying any consequence. This  fact , may be crucial, but I will not go on elaborating as it is not the matter of the present article, but  we may have the opportunity to further discuss this in the future, at a more opportune moment. So, to end with the “denomination”, to say that the name of the breed is “a detail” is the argument of those who have no cause to justify such  violence to a traditional name, awarded by history and one we cannot and do not want to sacrifice for commercial interests. Skipping to the “Historical Summary”, I must say that there are differences also. And they are not of little importance, or at least please tell me what is left of the original when we start by losing its name and history. Even the origin of the breed is not explained clearly in the Dogo Canario Standard. It says: “Molosser dog native (when?) of the islands of Tenerife and Gran Canaria, in the Canary Archipelagos. Emerging (when?) as a result of crosses between the “majorero”, a pre-Hispanic (is it proven that that dog is pre-Hispanic? Or, as plausible as it can be, is it merely an hypothesis?) cattle dog originating from the islands, and molosser dogs brought (when?) to the archipelago. These crosses originated (when?) an ethnic grouping of dogs”. On the contrary, in the historical summary of the Presa Canario there is more precise information about his origin: “The most logical conclusion is to think that this dog was introduced into the Canaries by the Spanish conquerors and settlers” and  also not ignored is the next historical era characterized by the influence of dogs of other countries – in particular of Great Britain – that, together with that of the Perro de Ganado Majorero give birth to the modern Presa Canario. At the same time, it is not ignored in the Presa Canario breed standard that “In the last decades he has been frequently used as fighting dog”. Why should one try to hide that? Maybe it should be asked to those who drafted the Dogo Canario breed standard. Anyhow, it is not right  to hide or  deny it and like it or not, it was a part of the history of the Presa Canario. Considering these  differences of little importance is, in my opinion, at the very least superficial. In its preface letter for the book of Manuel Curtò, Clemente Reyes Santana – already at the very first Nineties – writes: “Without an exact knowledge of his past it will be hard to have a real idea of his present and very less of the future which will come” [15]. I agree so much with Mr. Reyes Santana. Going on with the chapter “General appearance / General aspect and character” one should note that the breed standard of the Presa Canario is much more complete and detailed on the whole. Talking about differences between the two, there are some details which seem of importance. As far as the aspect is concerned that of the Presa says: “His aspect is very powerful. Harsh gaze.”, while el del Dogo is “Their appearance is calm. Attentive gaze”. To describe the temperament the Presa Standard uses the adjective “strong” while the Dogo “balanced”. That may not seem macroscopic differences, but they are indicative of the aim which is behind these changes – a manipulation of the breed standard in order to give the image of a “more presentable” dog for the international community, or to say it more directly, “that can be sold more easily to the great public”. And it is clear that with these objectives in mind it cannot be pretended that the rustic character of the Presa Canario may be conserved. As a matter of fact, the breed standard of the Dogo Canario reports between the eliminatory defects – say the worst of the worst - “any indication of aggressiveness”. It is at least exaggerated, considering that we are not talking about a sheep, but about a dog which should have a dominant character towards their kind, a strong guard instinct and distrustful towards strangers. And more, considering that in the show rings the specimen are always very close to each other and where it is pretended that the dogs let a stranger (the judge) touch them or even put a hand in their mouth. In this surrounding the Presa Canario cannot act like a sheep, its behaviour should be totally different. Regarding this aspect, in the already cited book of Mr. Pascual Asensi Peinado, the specialist judge of Presa Canario, Augustìn Lopez Melo writes [16]: “I pay particularly attention to the way by which a Presa Canario comes inside the ring in order to be judged” and he goes on “he looks for something, his arrogance should look evident, his self confidence will let him walk with the tail well raised, and he will not loose a single detail when other males will enter the show ring” and more “he will be challenging in front of other males, as its atavism with fighting dogs makes him act like this”. And how is that now, in the case of the Dogo Canario, of which according to specialist judge the Augustìn Lopez Melo, is considered worth of elimination “any indication of aggressiveness” ? To say the truth, and to end with the “character”, both breeds standards have the serious defects of not requiring or making reference to any temperament test, which should be a requirement for a dog like the Presa Canario but that has been almost always skipped – since the very first shows of the Eighties [17] - and according to which breeders paid even less attention in its selection process. Let’s pass on to the morphology. As far as the “Height to the withers” is concerned, the upper and inferior limits have been changed – in the Dogo Canario standard - by reducing them by a centimeter; I cannot understand with what aim in mind as there is not even a maximum weight. Anyhow, let’s not focus on the questionable change of the height values and try to concentrate on a more important aspect. The breed standard of a functional dog should fulfil the difficult work of defining the typical characteristics of the breed yet without falling into the temptation of setting all of them too strictly and precisely, as this would determine the definitive exclusion of a good part of the population and of its genes – including the specimen with great functional skills – with easily imaginable consequences. This “elasticity” or “intelligence” is translated into the following way in the two breed standards, in the same section “Height to the withers”. In the Presa Canario standard we read: "The specimen that may exceed the height limits should show a correct proportion between the size of the limbs and the volume of the trunk". This is a reasonable opening for those specimen which overpass the height values but which possess correct proportions.  On the other side, in the case of the standard of the Dogo Canario, the “elasticity” is all summed up in the phrase: “In the case of very typical specimens, a 1cm deviation from the set maximum and minimum will be allowed". What a concession! Be warned, just in the case of “very typical” specimens. Going on, with the “Head”. In the standard of the Dogo we read: "covered with loose hanging skin", which is not found in the standard of the Presa Canario (pay attention – we make reference to the agreed one), which is more precise and sets its average length. That is not a casualty too: the head of the Presa Canario should not be “covered” with loose and hanging skin, which should be present on the neck (for functional reasons), as it can be read in the overall description of the Presa Canario: “Cylindrical neck, very muscular and covered with a thick loose, elastic skin”. The Neapolitan Mastiffs, the Bullmastiffs, the English Mastiffs…their head is for sure “covered” by loose and hanging skin... Another aspect which is important for a good head is the Stop, or frontal-nasal depression: the breed standard of the Presa Canario clearly says: “The frontal-nasal depression is slightly pronounced”, while that of the Dogo reports: “Defined, but not abrupt”. There will be someone who will consider them corresponding, but I see difference between “slightly pronounced” and “defined” and I ask myself why the description of the Presa Canario standard needed to be changed. Would that be in order to be closer to the description of the F.C.I. breed standard N°157, that of the Bullmastiff ? Which of course says "stop: pronounced"... It is not too difficult to realize, looking at the pictures of a good number of dogs which come from the bloodlines of the ex Tenerife Breed Club [18] - which now is that of the Dogo Canario – as in many cases these dogs show a well defined frontal-nasal depression, probably due to the crossings with foreign breeds in the past years. On the other side, we take note that experts like Clemente Reyes Santana [19] and Manuel Curtò Gracia [20], tell us that is preferable and typical – in the authentic Presa Canario – a scarce frontal-nasal depression. Then, the “Lips”: “The mucous membranes are of dark colour, but can be in shades of pink.” says the standard of the Presa Canario while that of the Dogo Canario does not leave any room for interpretations: “The interior lips are dark”. Maybe a minor difference (how many minor ones…) but that is linked again to the “elastic” approach which should always be present in a standard of a functional breed. In the same section, the one which describes the lips, the Presa Canario breed standard also reports a functional aspect: “Normally he does not drool”, an aspect of which there is no trace in the Dogo Canario standard: another casualty? We leave to the reader the interpretation, and go on. As far as the “Jaws” or “Jaws / Teeths”: in the case of the Dogo Canario the standard says: “Scissor bite. Level bite is accepted although not desirable due to the tooth ware that it causes. Slight prognathism permitted”. But then, between the defects it lists the level bite. On the other side, in the Presa Canario standard we read: “Generally he does not show prognathism. Scissors or level bite”, and in the slight defects cites the “slight prognathism” and in the serious ones includes “excessive prognathism” and “absence of premolars”. I like much more that of the Presa Canario, essentially for three different reasons. First of all, as it describes the prognathism as a defect, while that of the Dogo admits it as long as it is slight. Without starting to argue about by which value (or worst, of personal interpretation) this trait starts to affect the functionality of the grip of the dog, I prefer to remember that – as far as we know thanks to oral and written references [21] - the old Canarian dog aficionados used to call the dog which showed prognathism with the negative term “boquinos”. As a matter of fact, Don Francisco Saavedra Bolaños – who lived the era of the “pechadas” – interviewed by Manuel Curtò says: “And I do not even consider dogs with prognathism”. Second aspect, the level or pincer bite. According to the Presa Canario standard it is legitimate and is not penalized by any manner. One could argue and try to demonstrate that the scissors bite may be preferable – but to penalize the level bite as it is done in the Dogo Canario standard is a different thing. Every breed has got its own standard, but there are cases of catching dogs for which the level bite is considered the ideal one: for example the in the standard F.C.I. 292 of the Argentine Dogo we can read: “Pincer bite, though scissor bite is accepted.”. Regarding this, Ruben Passet Lastra, personal friend of Don Augustin N. Martinez, says "But the ideal thing is that the argentine dogo have a level bite, being his principal mission to keep the enemy and to immobilize him till the hunter would kill him, is preferable the level bite as when one wants to catch a thing a claw is used, while the scissor is used when one wants to cut.” Another case is that of the Spanish Alano. In his book [22] “Alano Espanol: historia de una realidad consolidada”, Augustìn Del Rio Yenes describes the morphology of the dog: “Level bite. Sometimes may show certain inferior prognathism..” and more “nonetheless, as it is logic, it is not desirable that this slight defect is produced and one always tend to select in order not to have it”.   Also, in the interesting article [23] “So bite me: a detailed study of canine dentition” the author C.A. Sharp – an internationally recognized expert of canine genetics – writes: “Breed standards vary on whether they do or do not fault it. There is clearly no consensus among dog people. Those who fault the even bite claim that it causes increased wear of the incisors, but there is little evidence to support this. A number of years ago the author, upon coming across a wolf with an even bite (Fig. 7), undertook a survey of wolf dentition” and she goes on: “Teeth and jaws were inspected on 39 wolves, 9 of which were captive and the balance skulls of wild wolves trapped over a wide span of time and geography. Of the 39, 16 had even bites. This included five of the captive group, all of whom were related. Even discounting those, fully a third of the wild wolves had even bites. No structural fault is tolerated to this degree in a natural species, particularly in a feature so critical to the survival of that species”. Having taken note of these unequivocal argumentations about the functional and natural legitimacy of the level bite, we should now pay attention to the own and typical characteristics which define our breed, and which are those we care more about. As far as we know the level bite was widely present yet since the Eighties between the Presas of the islands, coming from different bloodlines. To the respect, we can cite Clemente Reyes Santana who commenting on a website [24] regarding his article “The Perro de Presa Canario” elaborate: “the most generalized bite in the population of the Presas of the Eighties is the level one”. And in order to rule out the hypothesis by which this teeth occlusion would derive by crossing with Neapolitan Mastiff, as someone dares to assert, he goes on saying: “not all the considered specimens came from the Neapolitan Mastiff, the bloodlines coming from the kennel of Juan Santana and the ones of Arbelo, from Vecindario, were absolutely free of that crosses and were also taken into consideration”. Third aspect related with the “Jaws” are the missing premolars. The Presa Canario breed standard includes in the serious faults any missing premolar, while that of the Dogo Canario does not consider the missing of the first premolars as a defect. Sure, if the fourth premolars are missing that is a much more serious functional fault, but in the end there are cases in which an incomplete mouth of a Dogo Canario is not penalized by any manner.   Now, do not tell me that in a catch dog the mouth is not that important or that are still minor differences. Anyhow, there are more, we will sum one to the other. As far as the “Ears” section is concerned, the Presa Canario standard explains that “The specimen with complete ears will compete equally with those having cropped ears” but also points out: “When they are cropped, according to tradition,...”. I think that the traditions – passed on by written or oral form – are an important element of our breed and that for this reason they must be always taken into account – this aspect is again linked to the “transmit by preserving” concept. This aspect is not present in the standard of the Dogo Canario, which just says (in its original Spanish version): “In the countries in which the cut is permitted, they will stand erected”: should this mean that the ears will stand or not depending on the laws of the country where the dog actually is? Forehind legs: the standard of the Presa Canario says “Solid nails, black or white, depending on the coat colour” while that of the Dogo Canario says “The nails are dark, white is undesirable, although they can appear according to the coat”. Note that in the first one it is pointed out first of all that the nails should be strong – which is a functional element – while in that of the Dogo Canario the colour is the only aspect which is regulated. Now, nor the nails may be white, I imagine the people that before going to the exhibitions try to paint the nails where a little pigment is needed… Another difference, in the “Trunk”: we read in the Presa Canario standard “The overall thoracic build has a cylindrical tendency”, while in that of the Dogo Canario this is not said. In a recent discussion published on an Internet [25] page, in order to answer to Clemente Reyes Santana who describes the rib cage of the Presa Canario with the “cylindrical” term, a user who uses the signature “Club Español del Dogo Canario” maintains that “the ribs must be well arched, which produce a very wide chest, but not cylindrical.”. This is a different position to what we find in other sources dedicated to the Presa Canario, as the book of Manuel Curtò, in which he says that the cylindrical rib cage – not to the point to look like a barrel – is ideal [26]. And also the same Augustìn Lopez Melo maintained some years ago that the  “cylindrical rib cage” is one of the details which define the Presa Canario [27]. In the “Tail” section, in the Presa standard we find “of high insertion”, confirming again what is written also in the “Overall description”. In the Dogo Canario breed standard we read: “insertion medium”, and between the serious defects it is listed: “high tail insertion”.   And finally we come to the “Coat”. Probably all already know that the breed standard of the Presa Canario includes the black coat, while the Dogo standard excludes it. This matter has already been the object of a number of discussions and articles, which have undoubtedly proven the historical legitimacy of the black coat yet have demonstrated the fragility of the reason (hypothetical crossings) at the origin of its exclusion, which could be applied at the same time also to other coat colours, like the fawn [28]. The black coat has always been a typical colour, and particularly in Gran Canaria [29] where famous specimens were born, like the more recent “Tinto” of Demetrio Trujillo or the older “Negrito” of Salvador Hernández Rodríguez. Without entering too much into the matter, I just would like to point out that the exclusion of the black coat is a very serious problem, not only as unjustifiable as already explained – but also because of the “elasticity” which should be required to the breed standard of a functional breed. If the standard is stricter from an aesthetic point of view, the number of specimens who possess good functional skills that will be excluded from the selection process will be high and their “genetic asset” will be lost as a consequence. Now, in some cases the Dogo Canario aficionados maintain that the exclusion of the black coat is not that important as “there are not many Presas with black coat”. This is a senseless statement. The numerical diffusion of a coat, which in this case is also object of discrimination, is not necessarily linked with its legitimacy, which is the aspect we should care for. Here it comes again the concept of “transmit by preserving”. Again, as far as the coat is concerned, in the breed standard of the Presa Canario we read: “Generally shows white markings on the chest, little or big ones”, which is different from the “Markings can appear on the chest” found in the Dogo Canario standard. More in detail, the Presa Canario standard accepts dogs that have till 30% of white, while in that of the Dogo Canario the discrimination of the white markings is very clear, in spite of the statements of the same M. Martin Bethencourt – spiritual father of the Dogo Canario. As a matter of fact, he maintained that – see his book “El Presa Canario” at page 130 - “The verdino-gray coat, with white around the neck and in the paws, is very typical of the Presa” [30]. So, probably someone changed opinion, as in the standard of the Dogo – it is not just my personal impression – what is being said about the white markings is very far from that. Opinions change, the standard seems to change consequently. As a matter of fact, no less that in the “eliminatory defects” of the Dogo Canario breed standard we read: “Undesirable white markings ”. Having previously specified, referring to the white colour, that “it is desirable that it is reduced as much as possible” it is yet very clear that white markings in this standard have been totally discriminated. The truth, which is supported by historical texts and images – is that in the Canary Islands dogs with white markings exist since a number of years [31] – in spite of any breed standard – and their genetic diversity, as that of the black coated specimens, is an asset which pertains with complete legitimacy to the Presa Canario breed.   Finally the “Weight”. The breed standard of the Presa Canario says “Average of the males: from 45 to 57 Kg. (from 99 to 125 lbs.)” and “Average of the females: from 40 to 50 kg. (from 88 to 110 lbs. )”, while that of the Dogo Canario just sets a minimum weight: 50 kg for the males and 40 kg for the bitches. To let an undetermined maximum weight is, in my opinion, an error considering the present day dogs the world tends to produce – talking about molossers - worrying gigantism phenomena. “Worrying” at least for three reasons. First of all because it plays with the newbies of the canine world trying to impress them with size and so giving more attention to the aesthetical aspect (the bigger, the better) of the dog, without adequately considering other important qualities. In the second place, because in the great majority of the cases these oversized specimens have limited functional skills. Third, because they also probably will have more health problems. But again, the aspect we should more care about concerns the typical characteristics of the breed. Was once the Presa Canario a dog that easily passed  60 kg reaching in some cases  70 kg or more? It does not result to me. “To preserve” does not mean to manipulate as a consequence of personal likings. Well, reading and analyzing with a minimum of attention the breed standards it is clear that there are definitely differences. But these differences are not there out of casualty, they are a precise consequence. In this sense, even if I sustain that the differences are there to be seen, I would like to insist on the concept previously explained, be it that the original differences come from the selection process, in the concept of the dog, in the respect at all the time of its history (like it or not) and its traditions. And this, inevitably produces differences not only in the papers (the standards) but also in the same dogs. The idea of “transmit by preserving” was evidently not a priority for those who should have defended our breed in the opportune official places, people who know seem to use the alibi of an eventual – yet improbable, in 2001 – extinction of the breed [32], maybe in order to hide macroscopic errors. For the official Club the objective to “diffuse numerically” has always been preponderant. Actually, at the end of the Nineties, Antonio Gomez Ramirez, former president of the Club Español del Presa Canario, writes: “the incorporation of these new breeders, always aficionados, favoured the progressive growth of the number of the specimen” and he goes on “this rise of the population produce an easier diffusion of the breed, to wake the interest of more persons, and with that the club accomplish its mission of divulgation and promotion” [33]. Hard to be clearer. The same concept of “transmit by preserving” seems not to be clear for those owners, aficionados, breeders who think to support the Presa Canario and at present day participate to a system (with incorrect denomination and different breed standard) ruled by shows which are merely beauty contests. A system in which is not required any type of functional test in order to be awarded titles and consequently to produce a number of litters (as if “beauty champion” would mean “good stud”), so determining – or better said “deteriorating” – the qualities of the future generations. We come then to the recurring question: are Presa Canario and Dogo Canario two different breeds? To give an answer to this question is possible, after elaborating on two concepts. It can be object of discussion if the Dogo Canario breed exists or not – and as we already have seen at least from a legal point of view it is clear it does not – but on the other side it is very clear that exists dogs which correspond and are the image of that standard of the Dogo Canario: lymphatic and apathetic dogs, with short legs, too heavy, with much head-facial wrinkles. Without counting that, in spite of all that can be written in a standard, in reality much of these dogs frequently show also excess of lips, flat or not deep rib cages, incorrect leg positioning and scarce angulations, no temperament. At the same time we should admit that exist also cases of dogs – few, to say the truth – that even if they are formally Dogos Canarios possess the typical qualities of the Presa Canario. But this is not a sufficient condition – anyhow – to affirm that Dogo Canario and Presa Canario are the same thing. In the system of the Dogo Canario these virtuous dogs do not have a future. Their bloodlines will be inevitably mixed with the most widespread ones – the ones of “pure Dogo Canario” – so losing rapidly, generation after generation, their functional skills; all this in order to pursue the mission of the whole system: the title of beauty champion, on which the breeders of Dogo Canario focus their “selection” process. As a result, the concept of the Dogo Canario is not so recent, it was born in the first half of the Eighties, with the Club Español de Presa Canario – direct expression of the breeders from Tenerife – and their methods of recuperation of the breed, totally focused on the aesthetic of the dog. Already in 1985 says Clemente Reyes Santana [34]: “still I have not understood if what this club pretend to produce is a dog for decoration, or on the contrary if they try to adapt the standard to the dog which result by the exotic crossings they are producing”. We arrive then to the primordial difference between Presa Canario and Dogo Canario: the breeding concept – for a number of years very different between the island of Tenerife and that of Gran Canaria. Manuel Curtò, in the documentary “Il Perro de Presa Canario: l’antico guerriero” [35], says: “…the result is a different Perro de Presa in Tenerife and a different Perro de Presa in Gran Canaria”. The same breeder writes in his book [36]: “In Tenerife they breed docile dogs, without temperament, the majority of the times. That because they do not pay attention to the temperament of the dog, its fierceness, the nobility of its character, its real physical strength. They just look at the appearance, at the coat colours (or brindle or fawn). In Gran Canaria the colour is not that important. Before now, and since a long time ago, the catching dogs were being selected by their aptitudes, not for the colour of their coat. White or black, brindle or fawn, with white markings or not, it was not important. “A good charge, a firm catch, and the resistance”, these were the indispensable qualities in order to be a good Perro de Presa Canario. The dog who used to possess that characteristics could not be, never, quiet with the strangers, nor coward or timid, nor it was indecisive when it was the time to face an human intruder. That is the good dog for the guard and defence of the homes and properties.”. Anyhow, it is widely known that the population of Presas Canarios from Gran Canaria has always been taken into little account by the “official” Club, the one of Tenerife, which in various occasions has been presented by its own members as the unique party involved into the recovery of the breed. For example M. Martin Bethencourt [37] in his book, which was edited by the same Club Español del Presa Canario – writes at page 75 “In face of this big amount of work, we can honestly affirm that to say Presa Canario means just to say Club Español del Presa Canario”. Something which obviously does not absolutely correspond to the truth.   Well, for the reasons above explained and with due explanations given, we can in my opinion maintain that Presa Canario and Dogo Canario are for sure “two different dogs”. We can elaborate by saying that the separation process has been originated some time ago – in 2001 – and considering what's already said we can add that time will contribute to widening these differences; this in the case the Dogo Canario would not cease to exist before and that consequently the dogs which represent the breed will stop to enter the selection process. With humbleness, the community of El Presa.com has been created some years ago, at the end of 1998 – and it will live on to defend and promote the preservation of the Presa Canario breed with all his typical characteristics that we already talked about. In order to cite the phrase of a breeder who I esteem and respect for his work – which does not fear the judgment of time: “the Perro de Presa Canario is more alive than never”.   Bibliography ________________________________________ [1] See the Internet forum threads: http://www.elpresa.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25151 and http://www.elpresa.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25277 [2] Manuel Curtò Gracia, El perro de Presa Canario: su verdadera oginen, La Laguna, Tenerife 1991 - Ed. Nueva Gràfica S.A.L. [3] Clemente Reyes Santana, El Dogo Canario? – published in the website of the Club del Presa Canario de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: http://www.elpresacanario.com [4]Pascual Asensi Peinado, El nuevo libro de El Presa Canario y el Ca de Bou, Tikal Ediciones, Barcelona, 2000 [5] Acuerdos del Cabildo de Tenerife, 5th February 1516 [6] Clemente Reyes Santana, El Perro de Presa Canario, Revista Aguayro, Caja Insular de Ahorros de Gran Canaria, September October 1988 [7] Manuel Curtò Gracia, El perro de Presa Canario: su verdadera oginen, Ed. Nueva Gràfica S.A.L., La Laguna (Tenerife), 1991 – Page 225 [8] Juan Martinez y Alfredo Ayala, Senderos Isleños, TVE2 [9] Eduardo de Echegaray, Roque Barcia - Diccionario general etimológico de la lengua española -  Page 877 -Editor J. M. Faquineto, 1887 [10] El Diccionario portugués-español de David Ortega Cavero published in1966 by Editor Sopena says at page 651. “Filar: (talking about dogs): to catch, to grab” [11] Boletìn Oficial de Canarias, Number 61 – Friday 10th of May, 1991 – Pag. 2610 [12] Boletìn Oficial del Estado – Number 142 – Thursday 14th of June, 2001 – Pag. 21156 - 21182 [13] Boletìn Oficial del Estado – Number 10 – Thursday 12th of January, 2006 – Pag. 1349 - 1351 [14] Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentaciòn - Requerimiento al presidente de la Real Sociedad Canina Española para la modificaciòn de sus estatutos y reglamientos – January 20th, 2003 [15] Manuel Curtò Gracia, El perro de Presa Canario: su verdadera oginen, Ed. Nueva Gràfica S.A.L., La Laguna (Tenerife), 1991 – Page 15 [16] Pascual Asensi Peinado, El nuevo libro de El Presa Canario y el Ca de Bou, Tikal Ediciones, Barcelona, 2000 – Page. 140 [17] Manuel Curtò Gracia, El Perro de Presa Canario: su verdadera origen, Ed. Nueva Gràfica S.AL., La Laguna (Tenerife), 1991 - Page 211 and page 214 [18] See for example the picture of the book “El nuevo libro de El Presa Canario y el Ca de Bou” by Pascual Asensi Peinado, or that of the book “El Presa Canario” by Manuel Martin Bethencourt [19] Clemente Reyes Santana, La expresiòn en el Perro de Presa Canario- published on www.elpresa.com, February 2008 [20] Manuel Curtò Gracia, El Presa Canario y el Dogo Canario son dos razas distintas, published on www.iremacurto.com [21] Manuel Curtò Gracia, El Perro de Presa Canario: su verdadera origen, Ed. Nueva Gràfica S.AL., La Laguna (Tenerife), 1991 - Pages 101,162,233   [22] Augustìn Del Rio Yenes, Alano Español: historia de una realidad consolidada, Gijon, Ed. La Versal S.L., 1995 [23] C.A. Sharp, So Bite Me: A Close Look at Canine Dentition, published in Aussie Times, July-August 2002 [24] See the Internet Page http://www.bienmesabe.org/noticia.php?id=18360 [25] See the Internet page http://www.bienmesabe.org/noticia.php?id=18360 [26] Manuel Curtò Gracia, El Perro de Presa Canario: su verdadera origen, Ed. Nueva Gràfica S.AL., La Laguna (Tenerife), 1991 - Pages 126 , 208 [27] Juan Martinez y Alfredo Ayala, Senderos Isleños, TVE2 [28] Manuel Curtò Gracia. La capa negra en el Perro de Presa Canario, Canidapresa Magazine, n.8 March April 1999 [29] Clemente Reyes Santana, in its article “El Perro de Presa Canario”, published in the magazine Aguayro of September October 1988, writes: “Another aspect is that of the black coat, that in Tenerife cannot easily be found, and that however in Gran Canaria is preserved in specimens wich are very representative of the breed as they demonstrate their origin from ancient Presas of the same coat colour” [30] Manuel Martìn Bethencourt, El Presa Canario, Club Español del Presa Canario, La Laguna (Tenerife), 1998 [31] See for example what is said in the book of Manuel Curtò Gracia, El Perro de Presa Canario: su verdadera origen, La Laguna (Tenerife), 1991, referring to the following dogs: “El Teide”, owned by Don Pancho de La Paz Hernàndez (page 60) – “El Quebrao” owned by Don Polo Acosta (page 135) –“El Palomo” and “El Palgrante” owned by D.Demetrio Trujillo Rodriguez (page 244)  [32] Magazine “Canaria Agraria y Pesquera”, Las razas ganaderas canarias, Gobierno de Canarias, Consejeria de Agricultura Ganaderia Pesca y Alimentaciòn, Number 74 y 75, 2005 [33] Pascual Asensi Peinado, El nuevo libro de El Presa Canario y el Ca de Bou, Tikal Ediciones, Barcelona, 2000 – Pages 152, 153 [34] Manuel Curtò Gracia, El Perro de Presa Canario: su verdadera origen, Ed. Nueva Gràfica S.AL., La Laguna (Tenerife), 1991 - Page 95 [35] Canidapresa Magazine, Il Perro de Presa Canario: l’antico guerriero [36] Manuel Curtò Gracia, El Perro de Presa Canario: su verdadera origen, Ed. Nueva Gràfica S.AL., La Laguna (Tenerife), 1991 - Page 108 [37] Manuel Martìn Bethencourt, El Presa Canario, Club Español del Presa Canario, La Laguna (Tenerife), 1998