Cattle Mutilations in colorado

[154]

When you say "investigating officer", I presume you mean police or other law enforcement. Some types of law officers or government folks may have had specific training in identifying cause of death for livestock. Nonetheless, there are situations where ranchers and law officers say one thing while specific trained professionals say something else. The media may be quick to report "mutilations without normal cause" but they seem slow or lax in reporting follow-up where professionals determine that cause of death and injuries was not unusual and certainly not paranormal.

Okay, I don't disagree.

Anyway, if say, only 2% of ranchers and law folks don't know what they are talking about when it comes to a specific cattle death/injury incident - then how many of these so called mutilation oddities are going to pop up in the news over decades?

I don't know.

There is no justification for the first sentence in this quote. It slips a foot into the door. It suggests that we must agree that there are unusual occurances. We do not agree to that. Just because some people say that something is unusual doesn't make it so. Much, if not all of this cattle mutilation thing is based on taking folk testimony and opinions at face value. Good Ole Joe said the udder was apparently removed with a surgical tool... and so it was removed with a surgical tool.

I don't care what you think anyone "must" agree with or what you think I am suggesting. You disagree, evidence unexamined. So what?

Do this - find some official reports by professional wildlife biologists who declare that the death/injury of any animal was likely to be of paranormal, extraterrestrial or cryptozoologic (Bigfoot/Nessie/Chupacabras/Etc.) origin. If that stuff is happening, the professionals are going to be reporting it in official documents.

I don't care enough to bother. You do it. As if experts are going to do anything beyond noting it as unusual and then leap to declare it any of those things.

The woo and the credulous love the "we do not know" designation. So you don't think UFO ETs are bothering our cattle. In another thread, you did just announce that Bigfoot exists. Do you think Bigfoot is responsible for at least some of these cattle incidents?

If I do not know, I have no problem saying that I do not know and do not feel the need to then oppose and deny that which I do not know. You do. And no, I do not think bigfoot is responsible, nor do I think you are as clever as you think you are.

 

[Vortigern99]

I did not say anyone knows more than anyone else. I did not say anyone must be correct. I did not say that I cannot believe anyone could make a mistake. I did not say journalists did not erroneously report anything. I did not say anything must follow. Why do you intentionally misportray and distort my words and/or meaning? Are you committed to a position regardless of evidence? Have you made any attempt to verify evidence and testimonies in this incident or any other such incident?

You refuted Parcher's contention that canids were probably responsible with appeals to authority and personal incredulity. Attempt to wiggle free of those fallacies until you're blue in the face; the record is here on this page and can be read by anyone with an adequate reading comprehension. Judging by your collegiate-level sentence structure and consistently solid spelling, I gather you have excellent comprehension, but evidently you're so taken in by your paranormal belief system ("nothing natural or mundane can account for these mutilations") that you can't see where you're tripping up.

I was speaking not only of this supposed incident, but of many such incidents. You are free to presume that every witness, every reporter and every investigator in every such incident is not as intellectually adept as you, but I do not.

Your refusal to allow that simple human error could account for these reports does not do you credit.

I disagree, and based on this exchange already, have as little respect for your opinion and critical thinking as you apparently have for mine. Yes, short of personal examination of the witnesses and evidence, I would have to allow that it remains possible that dogs could be responsible for this incident, and even the misinterpreted "surgical" incisions, or some other such incidents and that the rancher and investigators are startingly inept in their observational and intellectual abilities, but I do not think that is likely.

I say "Huh, curious, I wonder..." You say "No, absolutely not!" Good for you.

I never said "absolutely not". I'm using terms such as "likely" and "probable", as I see you're doing as well, so good for you too.

 

[Jonquill]

One thing I don't get is why the predators don't eat the whole animal. Is it common for them to just selectively eat some parts and leave the rest? What about the claim there is no blood? Does that have a normal explanation in the wild, or does that make it more likely that deranged humans are involved?

That's why I thought that they may have died of natural causes rather than being killed by a dog.
I don't think the article says how old the calves were, if they were with their mothers or how long it was since they were last seen alive.

 

[154]

You refuted Parcher's contention that canids were probably responsible with appeals to authority and personal incredulity. Attempt to wiggle free of those fallacies until you're blue in the face; the record is here on this page and can be read by anyone with an adequate reading comprehension. Judging by your collegiate-level sentence structure and consistently solid spelling, I gather you have excellent comprehension, but evidently you're so taken in by your paranormal belief system ("nothing natural or mundane can account for these mutilations") that you can't see where you're tripping up.

I spoke plainly. Make of it what you will. Where did I ever say "nothing natural or mundane can account for these mutilations"?

Your refusal to allow that simple human error could account for these reports does not do you credit.

I do not refuse to allow any such thing. If we were speaking of one or just few such incidents, I would have to agree with you, but we are not and I do not. Your insistence in attaching positions to me that are not mine does not do you credit, in my opinion.

I never said "absolutely not". I'm using terms such as "likely" and "probable", as I see you're doing as well, so good for you too.

Then we disagree on the overall possible, probable and likely. You feel it necessary to stridently oppose me for that. I enjoy debate as well.

 

[Vortigern99]

One thing I don't get is why the predators don't eat the whole animal. Is it common for them to just selectively eat some parts and leave the rest?

Yes. In the forensics portion of my physical anthro class in the early 90s, one case we studied was a woman who had died in the woods. Wild dogs had got to her after she died, and by the time the body was found, the animals had eaten her face and bowels, but had not touched the rest of her. The soft tissue of the face and guts are nutrient-rich and are more easily accessible than the tougher, more labor-intensive meat of the voluntary muscles on the rest of the body.

What about the claim there is no blood? Does that have a normal explanation in the wild, or does that make it more likely that deranged humans are involved?

I need to look into this, but I believe that after a certain period of time the blood coagulates and recedes into the deep tissue, so that a cursory examination of the body will make it appear as though the corpse is bloodless. Someone please correct me if I have this wrong; I have to step away for a while and have conducted no research prior to making the claim.

 

[Amapola]

That's why I thought that they may have died of natural causes rather than being killed by a dog.
I don't think the article says how old the calves were, if they were with their mothers or how long it was since they were last seen alive.

No, there wasn't very much information at all. It did not say how long the calves had been dead and so on.

I've seen people make mistakes before, even when they are very experienced. For example I have seen ranchers blame coyotes for a death, when the tracks around the carcass are clearly dog tracks. Not everyone is up on natural history.

I've also had dog predation on my livestock, and sometimes there is no blood. This is because they killed the animal, not by ripping it open while it was alive, but by harassing it and wounding it until it died. (Dogs will grab an animal and shake, sometimes causing serious wounds beneath the skin without breaking the skin.) Once the animal has died it won't spew out huge amounts of blood, if the predator then starts to eat it. And dogs typically do not eat the entire carcass, as many of them are fed at home.

Actually, it will take a predator a while to eat a carcass depending on size of the animal, how much it had to eat recently, whether it has offspring to feed etc. Since the article gives no information about how long the calves were dead, or really much of anything else useful, it's hard to say if anything unusual at all took place.

It's odd to me the article mentions the sheriff, as I think the LE most likely to be called on this would be the brand inspector, and the sheriff would only be involved later on. But maybe it's different in CO.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Time to come clean.

It was me.

 

[William Parcher]

If you try to research this you will have problems using the search terms "mutilation" or "mutilate". This is because standard scientific and governmental studies and materials do not generally use that term - it is almost exclusively used by paranormalists or the debunking of such. Authors writing material on recognizing coyote and feral dog predation (etc.) for ranchers and professionals really have no use for the term "mutilate".

I did find an FOIA FBI set of documents "Animal Mutilation Project" 128 pages.

The material concerning the Animal Mutilation Project contains accounts of animal mutilations which were reported during the late 1970's. The FBI became involved when fifteen mutilations occurred in New Mexico. Various theories concerning the origins of the mutilations were explored by the FBI, including satanic cults, UFOs, pranksters, and natural predators. The investigation failed to identify any individuals responsible for the mutilations.

Cecil Adams on Cattle Mutilations

The Skeptic's Dictionary

Wikipedia

While many unconventional explanations have been put forward to explain cattle mutilations, a variety of scientists, veterinary workers and knowledgeable observers (including farmer and other agricultural workers) have suggested more conventional ideas, most of which revolve around the hypothesis that 'mutilated' animals died of natural causes and were subjected to known terrestrial phenomena – including the action of predators, parasites and scavengers.

Absence of blood is explained as:

* Blood pooling in the lowest points in the body where it will break down into its basic organic components.

* Blood that is external to the body, or in the area of a wound being consumed by insects or reduced by solar desiccation.

Surgical incisions in the skin are explained as:

* Tears in the skin created when it is stretched by postmortem bloat and/or as dehydration causes the animal's hide to shrink and split, often in linear cuts.

* Incisions caused by scavengers or predators, possibly exacerbated by the above.

 

[William Parcher]

Sheep 101

Means of attack

Each predator species has traits peculiar to it. Coyotes typically attack sheep at the throat. Dogs are usually indiscriminate in how and where they attack. Young or inexperienced coyotes may attack any part of the body as dogs would. Coyotes, foxes, and mountain lions and bobcats usually feed on a carcass at the flanks or behind the ribs and consume viscera such as liver, heart, and lungs.

Bears generally prefer meat to viscera and often eat the udder from lactating ewes. Eagles skin out carcasses and leave much of the skeleton intact on larger animals. With lambs, eagles may bite off and swallow the ribs.

Smaller predators such as such as coyotes, foxes, and bobcats select lambs over adult sheep. Bears and mountain lions take adult sheep as well as lambs. Coyotes, dogs, bears and mountain lions may kill more than one animal in a single episode, but often only one of the animals is fed upon.

 

[William Parcher]

Interpreting the Physical evidence of predation on Domestic Livestock

Predation is a natural process whereby one animal, the predator, kills and eats another animal, the prey. Only animals that are strictly plant eaters are not considered predators. However, there are numerous other causes of animal deaths, including parasites, disease, poisonous plants, starvation, exposure to severe weather, ingestion of metal objects that penetrate the digestive tract, bloat, suffocation, lightning, and snake bite. Many predators will scavenge carcasses. Therefore, evidence of predators feeding on the carcasses of livestock does not serve as proof of predation.

 

[ExMinister]

Thanks Vortigern99.

William Parcher, I agree - using the search term "mutilation" most of what I've been able to find is from the paranormalist/UFO type sites, too. Satanic sacrifices, alien surgeries, secret government testing for diseases. But I did find this on Skepdic.com (link http://skepdic.com/cattle.html):

It is useless to note that insects and animals often devour the vulnerable mucous membranes and the softer parts of dead animals such as the genitalia, instead of trying to burrow through the cowhide. It is pointless to note that incisions to a carcass by the teeth of predators or scavengers often resemble knife cuts. It is pointless to note that bloating often leads to skin splitting in straight lines resembling incision and exposing internal organs. It is of no use to point out that there is little or no blood oozing from the wounds because blood settles, the heart does not pump when an animal is dead, and insects devour the blood that does spill out. And it is certainly pointless to describe the experiment done by the Washington County (Arkansas) Sheriff's Department. They placed a dead cow in a field and had observers watch what happened over the next 48 hours. When they reported that bloating led to incision-like tears in the skin and that blowflies and maggots had cleaned out the soft tissue so that the carcass looked exactly like those that had been attributed to aliens or satanic cultists, they were generally ignored by the community of true believers.

My bold. Thought that last part was interesting.

 

[ve2vfd]

Why would extraterrestial aliens travel millions of light years to check out our side of beef?

Because they are tasty?

Pat

 

[bookitty]

I always find myself wondering if it cost extra to insure cattle for wild animal attacks.

 

[Rolfe]

I remember the first time I came across this particular woo. I was in a car repair shop, waiting for them to give me the right bill. Among all the car mags was a magazine with a picture of an absolutely magnificent crop circle on the cover. I picked it up and discovered it was a woo publication. It had a big article with a lot of pictures of dead cattle with ordinary, commonplace scavenger damage on the bodies. The text, much to my surprise, was attributing this unremarkable phenomenon to aliens. I was pretty surprised I have to say,

Last time I got into a pissing match on this forum about this one, I had to contend with posters declaring that they heard someone on TV ten years ago say this damage wasn't "natural", so excuse me, that proves it, and just because you say you've a veterinary pathologist doesn't mean you know anything. So if we're going round that one again, I'm offski.

I will repeat, however, that of all the pictures and articles I've been shown about this, I have never seen anything at all that would make me suspect anything more than normal scavenging of natural livestock deaths, with the occasional predator kill.

Rolfe.

 

[shandyjan]

Rolfe I in particular enjoyed your previous postings and the glimpse into it from your personal experiences.
I note these articles still pop up, and are never updated by the media they appear in, leaving people with a feeling that mutilations keep happening the world over!

 

[Eyeron]

There was a show I saw on the National Geographic Channel on this a long time ago. During this show they had a remarkable piece of film. It was a time elapsed film of a cow left out overnight that a sheriff had filmed back in the 1970s I think. I wish I could find that film again and post it here.

It basically proves that the mutilations are done by completely natural causes.

 

[ExMinister]

There was a show I saw on the National Geographic Channel on this a long time ago. During this show they had a remarkable piece of film. It was a time elapsed film of a cow left out overnight that a sheriff had filmed back in the 1970s I think. I wish I could find that film again and post it here.

It basically proves that the mutilations are done by completely natural causes.

Do you think it might be the one I mentioned in my post above? The Washington County (Arkansas) sheriff's department?

 

[ExMinister]

Last time I got into a pissing match on this forum about this one, I had to contend with posters declaring that they heard someone on TV ten years ago say this damage wasn't "natural", so excuse me, that proves it, and just because you say you've a veterinary pathologist doesn't mean you know anything. So if we're going round that one again, I'm offski.

I will repeat, however, that of all the pictures and articles I've been shown about this, I have never seen anything at all that would make me suspect anything more than normal scavenging of natural livestock deaths, with the occasional predator kill.

Rolfe.

Hi Rolfe, are you a veterinary pathologist?

Curious - have you come across the claims about parts of the cattle being exposed to temperatures of greater than 300 degrees Fahrenheit? Do you think that's made up? Seems like an odd claim and I'm not aware of any natural phenomena to account for it, but that's assuming there's any truth to the claims to begin with.

ETA: Granted that's not the only odd claim. Not in the OP specifically, but there are also claims of mysterious black helicopters and, of course, strange flying discs seen at the sites of the cattle mutilations. I only ask about the temperature thing on the off chance it might have a natural explanation and actually be based on some truth.

 

[Rolfe]

Nobody round here thinks anything other than the crows is interfering with dead cattle. Americans are generally held to be nuts.

So really, I don't hear those claims. But the dead animals I see are just the same as in these "mutilations" article. Give or take a few more large-toothed scavengers.

Rolfe.

ETA: The first paragraph isn't exactly true, we do have nutjobs who think there are pumas on the loose in the countryside. The really weird part about that is that these pumas must be living on fresh air about 99% of the time, have invisibility cloaks, and are able to teleport hundreds of miles between meals.

 

[TjW]

After the NM cattle mutilations, I visited my mom in Springer, NM. Her Uncle Art knew all the long-time ranchers around there. The "mutilations" had happened considerably further south, I believe. I was a fly-on-the-wall listening to Art and the ranchers that came into the Brown Hotel for breakfast. There were a lot of stories, some, I'm sure, for my benefit. But their explanation was not exactly aliens. It was "hobby ranchers", generally money that had come from Texas, misinterpreting what they saw.
They could have been wrong, of course. There was a certain more-or-less good-natured antipathy toward Texans in the group.

It's an argument from authority, of course, but it's what put me firmly in the "critters et 'em" camp.