Reactions to the Chupacabras in Puerto Rico

Although the earliest reported sightings of the chupacabra were in the 1990s, the legendary creature has become deeply entrenched in the public consciousness. Those who believe that chupacabra exists insist on its reality in spite of there being no photographical or scientific evidence that it is an actual species (Radford, 2012). Yet “flesh and blood chupacabras have allegedly been found as recently as June” of 2017, making the “monsters eminently more accessible for study than, say, the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot,” other stalwarts of the cryptozoology community (Than, 2010). The term chpacabra, or chupacabras as they are often called, means goat sucker, referring to the reports of the creature killing goats and drinking their blood. Therefore, the chupacabras has some symbolic link to the vampire as well as to its cryptozoological compatriots like bigfoot. As interesting as the chupacabra itself might be, equally as fascinating are the sociological and psychological effects of the reports. Since 1995, more than 200 reports of chupacabra have surfaced, all from North America and most from Puerto Rico (Than, 2010). These reports have led to deleterious effects in the affected communities, including widespread panic and wanton killing of wildlife.
The chupacabras has been spotted mainly in the United States, Mexico, and Puerto Rico, where the legend was originally born. As Moye (2014) points out, several residents of a small town in Texas have not just reported seeing the chupacabras but also claim to have preserved chupacabras corpses. The scientific explanation most typically given for the chupacabras is not that it does not exist at all, but rather, that it is simply a wild animal mistaken for the mythical creature. The most common explanation is that the chupacabra is a coyote with mange, which often appear “quite debilitated,” and which may prey on easy targets like livestock (Than, 2010). Moye (2014) also states that some believe the chupacabra to be a type of raccoon. DNA analyses on a suspected corpse have revealed that in at least one case, the suspected chupacabras was nothing more than a “hybrid of a coyote on the maternal side and a Mexican wolf on the paternal side,” (Moye, 2014). Nevertheless, not all sightings of chupacabras is canine in appearance. Almost all the earliest sightings until 2000 were decidedly un-canine, described as “a bipedal creature that was three feet tall and covered in short gray hair, with spikes out of its back,” (Than, 2010).
Although the chupacabra stories started to surface in the 1990s in Puerto Rico, Radford (2011) points out that there were earlier sightings throughout the 20th century. The stories and the folklore surrounding the chupacabras have dramatically changed over the years, perhaps accounting in part for the shift in its appearance from an odd bipedal creature with spikes towards one more canine in appearance and behavior. Derby (2008) describes the extent of the original reports of chupacabras, noting that in 1994, residents of Canóvanas, Puerto Rico had reported dozens of wildlife fatalities not limited to goats. Following the Puerto Rican reports, over 2000 more farm animals were reported dead via a “grotesque creature about three feet tall, with membraned wings, a hunched back, large eyes, covered with either scales or quills,” (Derby, 2008, p. 290-291). Some reports also offer the chupacabra the additional sinister feature of “glowing red eyes,” (“Chupacabra,” 2001). Given its fearsome appearance and the trail of destruction left in its wake, it was no wonder that the communities that had been affected started to panic. Whenever and wherever chupacrabas had been spotted, residents of the community would go so far as to completely board up their residences, take up arms, and hire guards to protect their loved ones (Derby, 2008). In fact, some ranchers even started to sell off their herds to minimize their financial losses in anticipation of both drought and further chupacabras attacks (Derby, 2008). In California, a wave of chupacabras sightings led to livestock owners and ranchers to declare “open season” on protected wildlife including mountain lions, leading to mandatory police controls of affected areas (“Chupacabras,” n.d.).
The panic surrounding cupacabras had become so widespread and potentially devastating to local communities that the governments of Mexico, Puerto Rico, and even the United States were forced to step in. As Derby (2008) points out, international press conferences ensued, including reports from “prominent biologists” who offered their theories about what the chupacabra could have been, plus another autopsy of a corpse conducted in Miami, which yielded results of the creature was either a “puma or a dog,” (p. 291). Likewise, in 2007, biologists in Texas analyzed the DNA of a chupacabras and found it to be nothing more than a coyote (“Chupacabra,” n.d.). The biologists’ conclusions did little to assuage fears, as the analyses seemed inconclusive and lacking concrete and definitive evidence about what the creature might have really been and why so many continued to see something that was bipedal and vampiric. Even when the stories started to change, morphing the chupacabras into a canine creature, ranchers and farmers continued to cling to their claims and spread rumors.
The “confusion and contradiction” surrounding chupacabras comes from both sides of the debate, with reported sightings being too diverse and lacking in cohesive description to be seriously credible, and yet with scientific explanations also lacking substantiality (Radford, 2011, p. 9). Given the diversity of reports both in terms of their geographic locations, the description of the creature itself, and its effect on wildlife, it has been as difficult to debunk chupacabras as to prove its existence. Unlike bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster, there have actually been specimens that have been examined and tested, as well as thousands of animal victims of the chupacabras. Therefore, the legend of the chupacabra continues to proliferate, and bled quickly into popular culture. Panic is less likely to be the reaction to a chupacabras reporting now, replaced by a sense of pride in local customs and a mistrust of the government. In essence, the chupacabras plays perfectly to the tune of global conspiracy theorists.
The chupacabras is now known globally, even though its terrain remains geographically restricted, just as with the Loch Ness monster or any other similar creature like the yeti. Mainstream news networks from NBC and CNN to Univision and the BBC, have all picked up on chupacabras stories, albeit reporting those stories in a clearly skeptical way (Gabbatiss, 2016). The television shows X Files, and Scooby Doo both dedicated episodes to chupacabras, who also appeared on countless t-shirts and of course, Halloween costumes (Derby, 2008). A good number of these popular culture references are of course tongue-in-cheek and humorous, which has revealed an ancillary phenomenon: what Derby (2008) calls “a popular commentary on modernity,” similar to the Frankenstein legend (p. 292).
There is another important sociological and political effect from the chupacabras: the divide between the guardians of secularism and modernity versus those who believe in the importance of tradition and religion. Whereas it is easy for progressive, secular societies to dismiss the chupacabras out of hand, those who honor the legend even for humorous purposes acknowledge that folklore and storytelling play a significant role in human society. Folklore can link people together, offering the means by which to escape the harsher realities of war and climate change. Then there is also the fact that the people who have reported chupacabras genuinely believe in the creature, and that it threatens their livestock and ways of lfie. When people from urban areas or communities in far away places start to wear a chupacabras t-shirt, it seems insulting to those who actually do believe that it exists and is a serious public safety concern. In fact, the people of Canóvanas, Puerto Rico, and small rural ranching communities in Mexico felt denigrated and “manipulated” by the mainstream media who painted them as “ignorant hicks,” and Derby (2008) also claims that the legend represents the means by which urban legends are used to expose or mirror angst in the public consciousness (p. 292). Thus, chupacabras is at least an opportunity to study the symbolism and function of cryptozoology, as well as a means of studying the ways people manufacture supernatural stories for political or sociological purposes.
Interestingly, the chupacabras is never depicted as a creature that harms humans; it only targets livestock. This differentiates the chupacabras from vampires. Yet given the chupacabras does inflict harm on human communities, it is a sinister symbol of terrorism and oppression. The stories occasionally run dry for several years, only to resurface with a vengeance when a farmer loses hundreds of goats or cattle at once and blames chupacabras. As Delsol (2011) points out, too, the elusive platypus was once believed to be a fake creature relegated to cryptozoology as late as the 18th century. Therefore, the chupacabra may indeed exist. The question would then be: what does the chpuacabra actually look like if half the reports describe one thing, and the other half something totally different?
Whether or not the chupacabras exist, the legends and stories are compelling in their own right. The stories are unique to North America, just as the Loch Ness monster is unique to Scotland. Furthermore, the descriptions of the chupacabras have changed significantly, showing how legends and stories can morph while still preserving their core essence and meaning. Finally, the chupacabras represents at once the reactions of rural people who are frequently painted as being backwards, as well as the condescending reactions of urban people who believe themselves to be superior, nonplussed by superstition or legend.



Bibliography

“Chupacabra,” n.d.. Paranormal Encyclopedia. Retrieved online: https://www.paranormal-encyclopedia.com/c/chupacabra/
“Chupacabras,” 2001. Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved online: http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/chupacabras
Delsol, C., 2011. El chupacabras. SF Gate. Retrieved online: http://www.sfgate.com/mexico/mexicomix/article/El-Chupacabras-Tracing-Mexico-s-most-infamous-2331802.php
Derby, Lauren, 2008. “Imperial Secrets: Vampires and Nationhood in Puerto Rico.” Past and Present 2008(3).
Gabbatiss, J., 2016. The truth about a strange blood-sucking monster. BBC Earth. 10 Nov, 2016. Retrieved online: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161109-the-truth-about-a-strange-blood-sucking-monster
Moye, David. “Living Chupacabra Captured By Texas Couple?” Huffington Post: Weird News. April 2014. Retrieved online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/03/living-chupacabra-capture_n_5085942.html
Radford, Benjamin, 2011. Tracking the Chupacabra. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Radford, Benjamin, 2012. Chupacabra. LiveScience. Retrieved online: https://www.livescience.com/24036-chupacabra-facts.html
Than, Ker. “Chupacabra Science: How Evolution Made a Mythical Monster.” National Geographic. October 30, 2010. Retrieved online: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101028-chupacabra-evolution-halloween-science-monsters-chupacabras-picture/