For one, I have a real interest in UFOs and the evolution of thought about alien physiology, specifically the way a variety of alien body types have over time succumbed to or been obscured by the homogenous “grey” image. Interestingly, one of the areas where the American version of the “grey” hasn’t dominated accounts (or at the very least has been slower to dominate) is Latin America. The parallels between a diversity of reported types in supposed ETs and in chupacabrases is interesting, as we can actually observe, in real time, the homogenization of the image of los chupacabras (as well as variations). It’s also interesting because, in cases where mangy dogs HAVE been shot (such as near San Antonio) you have witnesses swearing that “this is what my grandma described to me as a chupacabras when I was a child” despite the fact the phenomenon is barely over a decade old.

These issues make the phenomenon intriguing to me, from a sociological standpoint, despite the veracity of the witnesses or their testimony.

Another question that the chupacabras phenomenon raises for me is “How would humans react in the face of a newly evolved species?”

Geology shows us that new and varied species have evolved and disappeared throughout earth’s history. Logic dictates (and historical and archaeological data would seem to verify) that any new species, when it first establishes itself, will consist of a small population of individuals who then, depending on their success, spread to new areas.

It seems natural that, confronted with a brand new species, many people would refuse to believe in something they themselves have yet to experience but that reports would continue to rise as the new creature established itself and became more succesful/increased its numbers.

I’m not saying that los chupacabras represent this type of “new” creature, but the study of the phenomenon does naturally lead to such questions for myself, especially when one considers their rather recent eruption onto the scene with rather limited historical antecedents (that is, antecedents outside the realm of stories largely regarded as folklore).

Might not the chupacabras be such an animal?

The resemblance to an “alien” is media hype as no one has ever seen an “alien” and the popular image accepted as an “alien” is a human construct. Early “alien” reports do not describe the popular modern image.

I still don’t like the thing as a real animal:
First, the decriptions are impossibly varied. Sasquatches vary in size and color, but they always look like sasquatches. Chupas look like… well, depending on the reports, they could be mammals, reptiles, furred, scaled, winged, hoofed, clawed, etc. That does not mean there’s no cryptid, but how do you judge the usefulness of a given report in a situation like that?
Sincerely yours,
Matt Bille

HAW HAW HAW! That’s purty good one.

You’re kidding, right?