Comments on: Runaway Bay’s “Chupacabra”: Dead Procyonid

By: TeslaDeathRay

TeslaDeathRay — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:24:22 +0000

First post here at Cryptomundo! Two things:

1.) I drive through Bridgeport & Runaway Bay all the time so it’s exciting to see crypto news so close to home. Heck I was out there last week and never knew this was going on!

2.) I raised a raccoon as a kid. It lived to a ripe old age (and was a wonderful pal!) so I am very familiar with them. The paws are a clear giveaway that it’s a raccoon but it would still have left me scratching my head.

3.) graybear – Nick Redfern definitely does differentiate between the ‘Texas chupacabras’ and say the “classic” Puerto Rico chupacabras. I heard him explaining that on a podcast once though I cannot recall which one off the top of my head.

By: CryptoMatt

CryptoMatt — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:29:27 +0000

I find it annoying that so many false cases of common animals with fairly common diseases are misidentified as cryptids and it certainly doesn’t help the credibility of cryptozoology, but I can’t say I’m really surprised by it.

Our media has a serious need of learning to get their facts straight before they run with stories. Just because it doesn’t have hair doesn’t mean its that unusual.

One of these days I’m gonna shave my dog and put it on youtube just to see what the comments would be.

By: Kokapelye

Kokapelye — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:54:37 +0000

Texas Parks and Wildlife biologist Jennifer Barrow has identified the beastie as a raccoon. From the videos and photos posted on the web you can see the incisors are spatulate, unlike a dog’s conical incisors but identical to a raccoon’s. News stories mentioned the length of the back feet were “calloused,” which would be the case with a plantigrade raccoon but not a digitigrade dog.

By: coelacanth1938

coelacanth1938 — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:31:34 +0000

What if Chupacabras were the result of a disease all along?

By: JMonkey

JMonkey — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:49:14 +0000

I recall reading a story earlier that said these may be half coyote, half red wolf offspring. One of the scientists even went so far as to say that the loss of hair could be a genetic problem with the natural hybridization of these creatures. I am personally no expert, but this seems to be a very reasonable conclusion.

By: Larry

Larry — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:55:46 +0000

Today, along a major highway in suburban Chicago, I saw a coyote running along the fence line. I was surprised enough to see that. Now, I think I should have called it a chupacabra and called in the media. For any doubters,

By: graybear

graybear — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 02:52:47 +0000

Maybe we should start to discriminate between the more traditional chupacabras and the “Texas Chupacabras,” which is meant to refer to a pitiful, dead, hairless dog. If the term becomes widely used, maybe it’ll stop this stupid “looks like a dog, is built like a dog, has dentition like a dog, so it must be something else,” parade we’ve had over the past few years.
Can anyone tell me when, exactly, MAD magazine took over writing the script for our reality?

By: SIRUPAPERS

SIRUPAPERS — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:22:35 +0000

While I do not believe that these animals are chupacabras I do believe we in the Cryptozoological world should take them more seriously. Firstly, one of the versions of the chupacabra resembles a dog, which indicates that sightings of these coydogs are included in the study of this cryptid. We need to better understand this animal’s behavior and territory to better classify true chupacabra sightings. Secondly, yes, they are coydogs (not unusual), but the consistency of their unique appearance seems to suggest the possibility of these animals being a separate breed. This would indicate a new feral breed, created in the wild, unseen for perhaps decades (if certain eye-witnesses are to be believed), with a known range from southern Texas/northern Mexico to Virginia. We can use this creature’s behavior to better understand how other cryptids remain hidden in our modern world.