OFFICIAL: CHUPACABRA Mystery Solved: A Wild Dog with a Case of Mange

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
So I wanted to make this thread the official thread the case of the Chupacabra is solved. I have read threads of partially solved, but still open ended to other speculations what this "beast" is.

I used the search function for this and found no actual solved case thread. So without further adue, here is the article and other research I did that will clear this mystery up:

CHUPACABRA MYSTERY SOLVED


news.discovery.com...


Instead of being vicious, fanged creatures that supposedly drink the blood of livestock, chupacabras turn out to be wild dogs inflicted with a deadly form of mange....

Scientists believe legendary chupacabras monsters are actually coyotes with severe cases of mange...



...scientists conclude that an 8-legged mite that burrows under the skin of coyotes can give these animals the "chupacabra" look... the mite responsible for the extreme hair loss seen in "chupacabras syndrome" is Sarcoptes scabiei, which also causes the itchy rash known as scabies in people....

When the mites then transfer to wild dogs, such as foxes, wolves and coyotes, the victims appear to be less able to fight them off....

In these unfortunate animals, large numbers of mites burrowing under the skin cause inflammation, which results in thickening of the skin. Blood supply to hair follicles is cut off, so the fur falls out. In especially bad cases, the animal's weakened condition opens the door to bacteria that cause secondary skin infections, sometimes producing a foul odor. Put it all together, and you've got an ugly, naked, leathery, smelly monstrosity: the chupacabras....

But what then explains the "goatsucker" livestock attacks?

"Because these animals are greatly weakened, they're going to have a hard time hunting," OConnor said. "So they may be forced into attacking livestock because it's easier than running down a rabbit or a deer."




IMAGE OF A MANGE MITE

Facts About Sarcoptic Mange Mites


Sarcoptic Mange Mites are tiny arachnids (cousins of ticks and spiders) that are parasites of mammals. They cause the disease known as "mange" or "scabies."

These mites are tiny, only 1/64 of an inch long. They are pearly white in color and oval-shaped. They have spines on their bodies and legs. They have no eyes.

Sarcoptic Mange Mites spend their entire life on their hosts. The host is the animal that the mite lives on.

Sarcoptic Mange Mites are parasites of squirrels, rabbits, foxes, dogs, humans, and many other mammals.

Scarcoptic Mange Mites use small suckers on their legs to hold onto their hosts.

After mating, female mites burrow into the skin of the host. They use their jaws and front legs to cut the skin. They mites tunnel in the top layer of the skin only.

Inside the burrow, the female will lay eggs. She lays two or three eggs each day, for up to two months.

Mite larvae hatch from the eggs in three or four days. They immediately crawl out of the burrow onto the surface of the skin. The will stay here, using the host's hair as shelter. Both larvae and adult mites eat skin cells from their hosts....

More....


So let's look at the fact that a female mange mite lays 2-3 eggs (so 3 eggs let's say) each day for let's say 2 months (60 days).

3 eggs x 60 days = 180 eggs.

You can see how fast these buggers can multiply!

Case Solved. Hope this research helps out ATS.
edit on 14-12-2012 by Skywatcher2011 because: added note





posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 
I personally do not believe in the chupacabra and any pictures I've seen of supposed chupacabras have always turned out to be some sort of wild mangy dog, at least in my opinion. But allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Sarcoptic mange is nothing new and has been a common parasite in animals long before any of us existed. That being said, why hasn't there been repeated reported instances of chupacabra attacks throughout the history of the US? It seems to have popped up only in recent history in the US, and the canine species has always been susceptible to Sarcoptic mange.

I tend to believe that this is a different breed of wild canine that has evolved quietly in the wild, and that the reason we hear more about them is due to their numbers finally being high enough that they are sighted more often. Just my two cents worth.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 
I personally do not believe in the chupacabra and any pictures I've seen of supposed chupacabras have always turned out to be some sort of wild mangy dog, at least in my opinion. But allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Sarcoptic mange is nothing new and has been a common parasite in animals long before any of us existed. That being said, why hasn't there been repeated reported instances of chupacabra attacks throughout the history of the US? It seems to have popped up only in recent history in the US, and the canine species has always been susceptible to Sarcoptic mange.

I tend to believe that this is a different breed of wild canine that has evolved quietly in the wild, and that the reason we hear more about them is due to their numbers finally being high enough that they are sighted more often. Just my two cents worth.



Yup. Cientists confirmed hybrids of canines and wild wolfs, coyotes in this same region.Also one of the possibility of the origin's of Goat Sucker legend.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Sorry, I'm not convinced.

This mystery is NOT solved.






posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
This 'outbreak' of mangy canines is a fairly new thing, and I have to say I'm not convinced it's a good enough explanation.
None of the descriptions of Chupes I had heard of before these coyote things started turning up had any sort of resemblance to a canine.

I might be wrong, but I think no matter how late it is, or how tired/drunk/scared/excited/angry/etc/etc I am, I could easily tell the difference between a dog and something that is so blatantly NOT a dog.
Also even if we say the coyotes are responsible, the fact that they are weak still doesn't explain the blood sucking problem. Chupacabra means goat sucker. And, I may be wrong, but I don't think canines even have the ability to suck up liquids. Lots of people who report an animal carcass that is a suspected chupacabra victim report the lack of blood at the scene. If a coyote tore a sheep open and lapped up the blood, there'd be loads.






top topics
 
0

log in

join