Of all the cryptids believed to exist on the planet, you might be surprised by which one I find to be the least likely to exist. At least by the definition of this cryptid that people think they’ve seen. And this is the fabled chupacabra or goat sucker believed to be responsible for brutal, bloody livestock attacks and mutilations. But I’ll tell you why I feel this way.

In many cases of supposed sightings, witnesses see or photograph a creature that is hairless, gray or black, and doesn’t look to them like any known animal. But disease and deformity can cause any creature to appear different than it normally would.
Mange is a skin disease found in mammals that is caused by parasitic mites. It causes itching, skin lesions, and ultimately hair loss. And I believe these animals affected by this disease are responsible for most supposed chupacabra sightings. But people see a hairless animal in the wild and they jump to conclusions.


A few years ago, a family in Texas trapped this animal, later known as the Texas Chupacabra, in a cage near their home. Since the animal was completely hairless and couldn’t be identified as anything else, they called it a Chupacabra. It was later found to be a raccoon with mange.

But most sightings reveal unidentified canines that look more terrifying than normal, “otherworldly” in nature, or deformed. And these deformities can often lead people to believe the animals are something other than what they actually are.


After showing him some photographs of creatures people believed to be a chupacabra,  I asked Karl Shuker, zoologist, cryptozoologist and author of ShukerNature to shed some light on this topic.

“These [sightings] tend to be either purebred coyotes or coy-dogs based on tests conducted on previous specimens,” he told me.

“Can you explain the appearances of deformity?” I asked.

“General ill-health, malnutrition, rickets from vitamin D deficiency, genetic issues. There are many possibilities.” 

Shuker also added that each case should be taken on its own merit, and he can’t know anything for sure without examination and sample testing of each individual specimen. He’s only relating his personal experiences with these cases.

But testing can only be done when we have a body. Mostly what we have are photographs. And those photographs cannot be proven or disproven as being an actual chupacabra. And any determination made by photographic evidence only is irresponsible.

But many people will still persist in claiming these creatures are the famous chupacabra. And I don’t really blame them. It’s more interesting to believe they are.

*******************DF




This Post By TCC Team Member Dorraine Fisher. Dorraine is a Professional Writer, photographer, a nature, wildlife and Bigfoot enthusiast who has written for many magazines. Dorraine conducts research, special interviews and more for The Crypto Crew. Get Dorraine's book The Bigfoot Research Journal



This post sponsored in part by

---

Have you had a close encounter or witnessed something unusual? Send us an Email
We Accept Guest Posts - Send Them To Us! (All Submissions Subject to Approval) Send us an Email
Help us!

Help Support The Crypto Crew

---