When I hear about the chupacabra, I immediately think of some ancient, mysterious, creature. I think of things like Acheri, or Walking Sam – myths and legends that are hundreds of years old. In reality, the chupacabra isn’t that old, with its first sightings being in the 1970’s. Where did this creature come from and what does it want?
The chupacabra is most often described as being reptilian in nature, with leathery or scaly greenish-gray skin and sharp spines or quills running down its back. It has also been described as appearing like a wild dog, hairless with a pronounced spinal ridge. In both cases, the creature has pronounced eye sockets, fangs, and claws. It stands at approximately 3-4 feet high and stands and moves much like you would expect from a kangaroo.
If its appearance isn’t enough to scare you, then perhaps its behavior will. The name chupacabra translates to “goat sucker,” with chupar meaning “to suck” and cabra meaning “goat” in spanish. The origin of the chupacabra can be traced back to Puerto Rico, where the first sightings were reported. Its name directly reflects its behavior, with it known to drain all the blood (and sometimes organs) from an animal, usually via three punctures in the shape of a downward pointing triangle.
The first reported killings took place in 1975, in the small town of Moca, Puerto Rico. At that time, they were attributed to “el vampiro de Moca” or “the vampire of Moca.” They were originally believed to have been committed by a satanic cult, but then more killings were reported around the island, with many farms reporting the loss of their livestock. In each case, the animal had its body bled dry through a series of small circular incisions.
El vampiro de Moca became associated with the chupacabra when more attacks occurred in March, 1995. It is believed that they could be the work of the same creature.
Eight sheep were found dead, with three puncture wounds in the chest area. The animals were completely drained of blood. Then in August, a woman named Madelyne Tolentino, saw something strange. She spotted the creature now known as the chupacabra in Canóvanas, a town in Puerto Rico which had seen 150 farm animals and pets fall prey.
At this time, the creature didn’t have a name. It wasn’t until Silverio Pérez, a Puerto Rican comedian and entrepreneur, coined the term after reading about the first incidents in the press.
The attacks did not remain isolated to Puerto Rico, and soon incidents were being reported in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and even the United States.
Several years later, in October and December 2018, animals were being reported killed in the exact same manner, this time in Manipur, India. Not only did they have the evidence of the dead animals, but they also had witnesses come forward, naming the chupacabra.
In October 2019, Mundo Ovni recorded the results of a supposed attack on chickens in the Seburuquillo sector of Lares, Puerto Rico
As a society who firmly places belief on evidence, do we really believe in the existence of the chupacabra?
Scientists and other experts have hypothesized that street dogs or other such animals are to blame for the animal attacks. They weren’t just guessing and trying to steer the conversation from mythological creatures. Their belief was based on their findings, after studying the remnants of a corpse.
Additionally, scientists never confirmed that the animals supposedly “drained of blood” had actually been trained of blood. Dr. David Morales, a veterinarian with the Department of Agriculture, analyzed 300 reported cases, and found that they had not been bled dry, as previously reported.
Writer Benjamin Radford concluded in his book, Tracking the Chupacabra, that the description given by Madelyne Tolentino, the original eyewitness in Puerto Rico, was solely based on the creature Sil in the 1995 science-fiction horror film Species. In the film, the creature Sil is almost an exact representation of Tolentino’s description of the creature. “It was a creature that looked like the chupacabra, with spines on its back and all…” Radford concluded that Tolentino “believed that the creatures and events she saw in Species were happening in reality in Puerto Rico at the time”, and therefore her eyewitness testimony could not be trusted.
Radford came to believe the chupacabra was nothing more than dogs and coyotes with mange – a skin disease of mammals caused by a parasite. This disease typically causes severe itching, hair loss, and the formation of scabs and lesions. Dogs or coyotes suffering from mange could easily fit the description of the chupacabra.
Biologist Barry O’Connor, with the University of Michigan, concluded that all chupacabra reports in the United States were simply coyotes infected with the parasite Sarcoptes scabiei. This parasite burrows into its hosts’ skin and can cause itching which leads to rashes, hair loss, and more. Animals suffering from this parasite would be left with little fur, thickened skin, and a rank odor.
The argument against dogs or coyotes is that they did not consume the attacked animal, and therefore it couldn’t be that. However, scientists who have studied the behaviors of these animals report that both dogs and coyotes can kill and not consume their prey. The puncture wounds in the animals can be clearly attributed to their canine teeth.
Then we ask, why are these animals suddenly hunting livestock? According to O’Connor, that explanation is simple. “Animals with mange are often quite debilitated. And if they’re having a hard time catching their normal prey, they might choose livestock, because it’s easier.”
O’Connor also believes the blood-sucking aspect of the legend is just an exaggeration. “I don’t think we need to look any further or to think that there’s yet some other explanation for these observations.”
Kevin Keel, a wildlife disease specialist has seen images of an alleged chupacabra corpse. To him, it was clearly a coyote. “It still looks like a coyote, just a really sorry excuse for a coyote.” He went on to say, “I wouldn’t think it’s a chupacabras if I saw it in the woods, but then I’ve been looking at coyotes and foxes with mange for a while. A layperson, however, might be confused as to its identity.”
Let’s go back to the beginning, the original description of the chupacabra. These creatures were believed to be 3-4 feet high and stand and move much like you would expect from a kangaroo. The explanation of a dog or coyote does not fit this description. Loren Coleman, director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine also agrees that dogs or coyotes with mange could explain much of the legend. “… but it doesn’t mean it explains the whole legend.”
Her explanation leans more toward that of Benjamin Radford. “If you look at the date when the movie Species opened in Puerto Rico, you will see that it overlaps with the first explosion of reports there,” he said. “Then compare the images of [actor] Natasha Henstridge’s creature character, Sil, and you will see the unmistakable spikes out the back that match those of the first images of the chupacabras in 1995.”
Another theory is that the chupacabra spotted were actually an escaped troop of rhesus monkeys. “There was a population of rhesus monkeys being used in blood experiments in Puerto Rico at the time, and that troop could have gotten loose,” Coleman said. She went on to add, “It could be something that simple, or it could be something much more interesting, because we know that new animals are being discovered all the time.”
Give the gift of Prime – Amazon Prime
Note to readers: If you purchase anything through one of our affiliate links, we may earn a commission.
Leave a Reply