Talk:Blue Lacy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misleading material[edit]

There is much of the information on this Blue Lacy page that is false and misleading. This page was created to promote a group of individuals and not the breed and true facts. Here are two credible sources will reveal some of the misleading information.

http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/dogs/tx_blue_lacy.htm http://texinfo.library.unt.edu/sessionlaws/79thsession/bills/hcr/HCR108.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelacy (talk • contribs) 03:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the history[edit]

Lacycourser, that is a very interesting article, I really enjoyed reading it and think you make a valid point.

I would like to propose that it was indeed a wolf, not a coyote or "Mexican wolf." There were several varieties of small gray and red wolfs indigenous to Burnett County when the Lacys arrived. It is believed coyotes were not present in the region in the 1850s. In fact, according the Texas Parks & Wildlife, the first coyote was not killed in the Marble Falls area until the mid 1960s. Additionally, all of the Lacy family documents I've read have indicated a wolf. It was not until the 1980s that the term coyote was used in breed literature.

Still, despite reading these letters and articles, part of me thinks it is just another part of the Lacy lore, an almost mythological fact to explain their striking eyes and intense drive.

Even if a coyote or wolf was used in the original mix, that occurred in the late 1800s. There was not a closed registry on these dogs until the 1990s. It is likely that many breeds were mixed in along the way depending on the needs of working ranchers and hunters. I bet very few modern Lacys are actually related to the original mix the Lacy brothers made. But I sure would like to think mine is :)

However, I do think this could be an elegant solution to incorporate your new research into the article if you feel it is important to clarify:

"The dog was noted by the Lacys to be an English Shepherd, Greyhound and wolf mixture.(link to Lacy article) It is possible the wolf was a coyote, as coyotes were commonly referred to as "Mexican wolves" in the early 20th century. (link to your article) The brothers originally developed their natural herding instincts to work feral pigs." TrueBlueLacys (talk) 5 March 2009 (UTC)


I read an article writen about H C Wilkes on the national lacy dog forum stating the dogs were red bone greyhound and coyote.It makes sence with the ears and the tracking ability. English shepherd seems way off.Fuzzwhopper (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC) == Breed mix history ==[reply]

In the History there is an issue I would like to fix. The article appears to confirm that these are a wolf hybrid when they are not. The reference (from a 1956 Op-Ed) quotes Ed Lacy as saying

"Frank had an English Shepherd dog he brought from Tennessee"..."John had a female greyhound and George had raised a gyp wolf he kept tied to a live oak tree."

Regarding the English Shepherd and Greyhound the breed origin is straightforward, however the issue of a "gyp wolf" is colloquial and confusing. The term 'gyp' is used in working-dog parlance to mean a female, an alternative to the terms 'bitch' or 'dam'. The confusion arises with the colloquial use of the term 'wolf', which is actually common when referring to a coyote in the Texas hill country.

For some insight on this and documented reference I'd like to point out a 1936 Time Magazine article entitled "Texas Wolf Hunt" http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757026,00.html It should be obvious that the term 'wolf' is a shortened version of 'Mexican wolf', a colloquial term in the mid-19th century and later. For further reference see the history of the Texas Wolf Hunter's Association, which sponsored an annual "wolf hunt" billed as the largest in the country, in a state where by that time the native red wolf had pretty much been eradicated.

I wish to do this to avoid spreading a misconception that the Lacy is an actual wolf-dog hybrid and show the true origin is more similar to a Catahoula or other coy-dog hybrid. However I'd like to do so in a way that does not obfuscate the provided references, which are extremely good in my opinion. I have not quite figured out how to go about it yet so I am opening this issue to suggestions. I do not intend to edit a huge portion of the history wording in doing so.--Lacycourser (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Blue Lacy the official state dog of Texas? This isn't clear from the entry.

When I created this article I am sure that I saw that the Blue Lacy was the state dog of Texas. It has been a while and I can't exactly remember where I saw this stated but it seemed like a reputable source at the time. I will look around some more when I get the time to find a reference. //jgrabbs

History[edit]

The history section starts when they were declared Texas' state breed, then goes on and says about how the originated.I seriously doubt they were Texas' breed before they originated.This really needs to be changed. The info is good but kind of abbrieviated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by APBTgirl (talk • contribs) 23:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments and sources[edit]

If I understand this correctly, a member of the Lacy family is basically saying that some of the sources (and people involved with this breed) have inaccurate information -- at least inaccurate according to what this member of the Lacy family, Blue Lacy (talk · contribs) thinks is the truth. I'm not clear yet specifically what information Blue Lacy is saying is inaccurate.

A big problem here is reliability of sources (by our criteria at WP:RS. Outside of the state site, it's hard to judge what is a RS, and even the state site isn't necessarily accurate, a different thing. We're talking about something that happened a long time ago. The Sam Harris article is interesting, but how do we know it's accurate? Barring the discovery of 19th century sources for how the dog originated, one thing that can be done in cases like this is make sure that claims are attributed to the source, rather than writing as though the claim were correct. That might be a good idea for the sentence starting 'The dog, according to the Lacy's...'. dougweller (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False Information[edit]

It is obvious a particular association is trying to promote thier organization instead of inform the public about this beautiful breed. If you look at the page, it is loaded with tags and links to their site. That is not what this "encyclopedia" is designed for. It is designed to educate the public about a particular subject, not to provide PR for an association.

Likewise, they have provided false information throughout the entire article. The Blue Lacy is called just that. Blue Lacy. It has not been renamed "Lacy Dog," "Hog Dog," etc.

Another false statement is the "English Shepherd" cross. While there are individuals that are outcrossing their Blue Lacy dogs, the Blue Lacy is a combination of scent hound, greyhound and coyote. Please see the standard as accepted by the National Kennel Club, http://www.nationalkennelclub.com/Breed-Standards/blue-lacy.htm. While the NKC still has the Blue Lacy listed as a recognized breed, they have temporarily withdrawn the registration of the Blue Lacy.

Another false statement is the Blue Lacy being accepted into the CDHPR and UKC. Please review their website, http://www.cdhpr.com/breedsenrolled.htm, and you will see the Blue Lacy is not listed in this program. You can also visit the United Kennel Club's website, http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/WebPages/LrnBreedInfoFullList, and you will see the Blue Lacy is not listed as a recognized breed. The registry for the Blue Lacy is found here, http://www.bluelacydogs.org/index.html.

The Blue Lacy was accepted as the State of Dog Texas in May 2005. Please visit here to see the H.C.R. No. 108, http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/79r/billtext/html/HC00108F.HTM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbluedog (talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation Of False Documentation[edit]

I am very upset with the fact that this page hasnt been previously changed already. I have been around Blue Lacy's for many years and never once until I pulled up this page ever heard of this dog being breed by a Shepherd. If you look at the breed, they dont even resemble each other. The Shepherd has long hair which I have NEVER seen a Blue Lacy with hair even longer then a Lab. If you look here on this website [1] and look at the section labeled "Coat" you will read this... Coat: Short, smooth, and tight. Excessively long or rough coat is a disqualification. This would mean that it has destinct coat features of a Shepherd which also makes this portion of this article wrong!


I have been keeping tabs here and I have not seen any changes so I thought I would look at the code, made myself a login the other day and noticed that someone has posted this....<Please Note..I have removed all code and replaced the code with four periods...>


accessdate = 2009-03-15.... The dog, according to the Lacys, was a mixture of ....English Shepherd.... (or perhaps ....coyote...., ....Greyhound...., and ...wolf....'DO NOT REVERT until better sources are found: two websites have mildly conflicting information; so be it. ...


In saying that, I dont see anywhere where there is conflicting information unless the author who this article is referring to is Wikipedia. Not only is there two websites, but, there are more the two INCLUDING the State Of Texas Website. My argument is this, is this website not good enough being that it is straight from the State Of Texas? [2]


--Lacydog4u (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Links to Historical Documents[edit]

I'm not sure what the accusation of "false documentation" are in regards to. All information is clearly sourced. If anyone is interested to see the two best historical documents, written in the 1940s and 50s and based on interviews with Lacy family members and acquaintances, they are available here: [3] and here: [4]. These are scanned from the original publications and, as a journalist, I'd consider them beyond reproach as historical documentation. I don't expect many people will take the time to read through those articles, they are quite lengthy, but all the accurate information is there.

But if there is documentation from reliable sources predating the above articles that contradicts these facts, I would be very interested in seeing them.

--TrueBlueLacy (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False information with in the main page[edit]

There are many articles from Journalist you can read, but this doesn't make them accurate or true. There are historical document facts that show this article to be inaccurate throughout. The group that posted it also was provided documentation and other information that conflicted with this particular article. Another false fact is that one of the brothers came from Tennessee. There are documented census records; military records and other documentation that proves all 4 brothers came from Kentucky. Also, all of Frank Lacy's family can tell you that he did not own an English Shepherd. Frank Lacy's son also wrote in the 40 and 50's for Full Cry Magazine. Those articles conflict with the English Sheppard theory. Wouldn't the man's own son know?

All of George Washington Lacy grandchildren can tell you never was a pet wolf mentioned. The hog dogger article does not restate the English Shepherd claim or offer support for the article. There is also an article written out there that Lacy's were developed by a man in prison with the last name Lacy. A journalist wrote that, so does that make that article true are noteworthy as a credible link?

This is more on the main page that isn't accurate. It states the "Official Standard" and a link to a groups website that has been created less then a year. You can go to the Official Blue Lacy Registry (LGDR) page to more accurate breeding and registration standards. http://www.bluelacydogs.org/243737.html

The main page also state the Blue Lacy has been accepted in the CDHPR program. You can view the CDHPR website and view that the Blue Lacy is not listed as a breed that has been accepted. http://www.cdhpr.com/breedsenrolled.htm

How many more sources need to be submitted for the main article to be changed with more accurate information regarding the Blue Lacy Breed? --Bluelacy (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Credible Sources?[edit]

Just having gotten into this discussion,,,,and having had Lacys for quite a few years, I have talked with Lacy family members myself. I was at the Capitol with actual grandchildren of the Lacy family before the Tourism committee presenting why the Lacy should be the State Breed of Texas. I know for a fact that the main page with information about the English Shepherd is incorrect. There is no shepherd in the Lacy development. As far as the CDHPR listing the Lacys,,, where can I find this? It doesn't seem to appear on their website.

The breed standard in the main article is not connected to the correct link. Whats the deal here? You cannot make that statement that it is the official standard with the link provided.

I've been involved with different breed Associations where rogue members decided to go off on their own agenda. Sounds like it is happening here and it will have a negative effect on the Lacy breed. Are we going to allow this to happen? --Tuillia (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note on sources[edit]

If there is documentation -- as in actually documents that can be cited, not hearsay from various groups, individuals or even distant relatives -- feel free to cite those. Currently the page reflects the oldest documentation available, which existed before any particular group was trying to push their agenda on anyone else. But if other documentation can be provided, such sources are always welcomed, and they don't require lengthy and repetitive dissertations to be included. --TrueBlueLacys (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main Article changes[edit]

The State of Texas has all the documentation and it is held in the State of Texas Archives. Not hear say. HCR 108 is a verified document. The State of Texas Legal Department wrote it after reviewing and verifying all the documentation and history regarding the Blue Lacy Breed. How much more credited can you get? The State of Texas Website site would be a better link and adjustment for history and development section. That is what this talk area is stating.

"Official Standard" statement and link is also wrong misleading and inaccurate. Please provide the documentation that the standard that is written on the main page is the "Official Standard". There is other links on the talk page that can prove to be the "Official Standard", but yet it isn't changed in the main article yet.

What documentation is there that the CDHPR approved the Blue Lacy? That would be a great link that should be provided. Their Website doesn't show the breed listed as accepted. Until the document link is provided, this should have to be taken down, or should be edited off.

Editing and changes need to be done to the main page on these three topics.--Bluelacy (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring[edit]

Whatever happens to the article needs to be backed up by sources. It appears to me that there's a whole bunch of dog lovers here who disagree over little white spots and plus or minus five pounds on males or females. There are some of you who keep removing valid links, or links that at least appear to be valid. You all need to stop this behavior; it's silly. If you have disagreements, take it up on one of the Blue Lacy message boards--don't have it out here or in the main article. Such changes will continue to be reverted.

The article as it stands is OK by WP standards, that is, the information is (mostly) backed up by sources. If you disagree with what one of these sources claims, take it up with them, or write a book about the pooch, which you can then add to the article. WP is not for the promotion of your own standards or for petty arguments. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coyotes used to breed the Blue Lacy?[edit]

what proof is there that coyotes were used to breed this dog? I'm curious and would like to link this article back to the coydog section but I need proof. Lyta79 (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of breed[edit]

An attempt was made today to change the name of the article from Blue Lacy to Lacy Dog. This was done without discussion, and by cutting and pasting, which is not an acceptable method (it separates the page from its edit history). This move was quite properly reverted.

If there is some reason why the article title should be changed, please discuss it here, and if there is a consensus for change we can then request an admin to do the move, which is blocked by redirect(s).

If the breed is not called the "Blue Lacy", we need to consider whether it is "the Lacy Dog", or a type of dog called "the Lacy" (compare, for example, Australian Cattle Dog, which is never called the "Australian Cattle", with most other breeds, such as Boxer (dog), normally called "the Boxer"). Usage within the article suggests just "Lacy", and if this is right, to comply with WP conventions the article ought to be called "Lacy" or (as Lacy is occupied) "Lacy (dog)". Richard New Forest (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Color and Coat Section[edit]

"Excessive white is discouraged, and markings on the face or above mid-line are a disqualifying fault... The coat should be short, smooth and tight. Excessively long or rough coat is a disqualification."

I think it should be specified what the dogs are disqualified from for the lay reader. Does this mean they do not qualify as the 'breed' without those traits? Also, I'm not quite sure I understand how one can discourage genetic traits such as white spots on the coat? That sounds rather subjective. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blue Lacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blue_Lacy&oldid=1213514045"