The chupacabra, Spanish for “goat sucker”, has rocketed up the ladder in cryptozoology fame. In less than twenty years since its first reported attacks on farm animals, it has gone from an unknown to being on the same plateau of fame as such cryptids as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. It is perhaps the first cryptid that credits its fame to the internet age and television. It was a favorite topic of early 90’s conspiracy theory show “Sightings” and its status as an unknown in the world of cryptozoology has had many people intrigued ever since. The Chupacabra has been refered to as the “Latin American Bigfoot” as it has attained that level of popularity and brand name. I am here to say it is the “Latin American Bigfoot” in another manner. That it is a nonexistent creature crafted from mythology, hoaxes, and faulty eyewitnesses.
However, what real evidence is there for the chupacabra? Attacks that have been blamed on the chupacabra have been recorded from Puerto Rico to
Russia. In addition, samples of “evidence” have been collected, ranging from hair samples to the infamous Cuero,TX chupacabras. However, all of
the evidence has pointed to it coming from either a domestic dog or coyotes. In addition, there are the numerous photoshops that have always turn up
every few months on the cryptozoology board.
Eyewitness reports of the chupacabra present an even greater mystery. The ones reported in Puerto Rico describe it as like something of a love child
between the Greys and Reptilians. It is a small bipedal creature with large glowing eyes, and with reptilian skin and spikes. The more common
descripition that has occurred as of recently is that of a creature that resembles a hairless dog. It is a four legged animal with pronounced canines,
and a hairless, seemingly distorted skin. The second has been sighted most prevalently in Texas, and is the type that were presented as evidence in
The fossil record shows no records for such a creature like the one so often described in the Puerto Rican attacks. In fact, if such a creature were
discovered it would represent perhaps an entirely new Class or Family not previously known to science.
The Texas Chupacabra seems like a much more likely candidate as it may simply represent an unknown species or subspecies of canine. However, how
likely is it that such a beast would still remain undiscovered? In the over three hundred years since Europeans first colonized the North American
continent, the decimation of every apex predator has followed. The cougar has been exterminated east of the Mississippi River, save a small population
in south Florida. Wolves as a whole were gone from the lower forty eight states until reintroduction efforts put Gray Wolves in Yellowstone and Red
Wolves in North Carolina. The black bear has similarly been reduced to only being found in various national parks. What are the chances that a
creature that matches the description of the Texas Chupacabra would escape detection and as well suffer a similar fate as the animals mentioned
In addition, the chupacabra’s own feeding method would lead to its potential downfall. If its feeding method is accurate, it lives on a type of
hematophagy. Apart from being what would be the second recorded mammal, besides the vampire bat, that uses this as its primary feeding method.
However, it would be inconceivable for an animal of this size to use it. It is simply to ineffective to gain the nourishment simply from draining the
blood of other animals. It would need to gain nourishment from the meat as well.
In short, the Chupacabra is nothing more than a mismashing of various cultural beliefs and superstitions. At best, the eyewitness reports record of
two creatures that would both be finds of the century, and at worst show how unreliable eyewitness reports really are. No real physical evidence has
ever turned up. This is no deep sea resident where it can resident in uncounted areas of unexplored territory. Chupacabras would seemingly inhabit
various territories that have been occupied by humans for several millennia. Yet no real local legends speak of such a creature, and in addition, it
seems to appear out of nowhere. The Puerto Rican variant has no fossil evidence, and the Texas variant should have turned up by now. Simply, the
Chupacabra was an overzealous explanation for attacks on stock animals that was taken too far.
My only question, in spite of all of this, outside of holding out hope, how can their be a reasonable belief the Chupacabra exists?
I feel most of the information I have presented would be common knowledge to the members of this message board besides the details of hematophagy so I
will post a link to several websites I felt helpful