CHAPTER 5

EVALUATION OF MUTILATIONS FROM OTHER STATES

One major objective of this project was to gather information from other states in order to assess the scope of the livestock mutilation phenomenon. Judging from media coverage, I knew that mutilations had been reported in states throughout the country. To evaluate these incidents, I contacted the governor of every state requesting information, as well as nine veterinarians affiliated with eight state diagnostic laboratories.

These include the Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Science, Colorado State University; Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Iowa State University; Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University; Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri; Montana Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory; New Mexico Veterinary Diagnostic Service, New Mexico State University; and Veterinary Laboratory, South Dakota State University; and Veterinarian Laboratory, Texas A & M. The complete reports furnished to me by these laboratories are contained in the appendix.

As in New Mexico, newspaper accounts from these states also tend to stress the bizarre and mysterious nature of livestock mutilations. Similarly, the data I received from qualified professional investigators and veterinarians, especially those


-170-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


affiliated with animal diagnostic laboratories, confirm the conclusions I have reached -- that the vast majority of reported mutilations are scavenger-induced.

In three of these states -- Colorado, Montana, and Arkansas -- the livestock mutilation phenomenon resembles that described in New Mexico in terms of the large number of reported cases and in the hysteria, and interest these incidents had generated. In addition, certain incidents reported in these states have contributed substantially to the lore surrounding the mutilation phenomenon. A fourth state -- Oklahoma -- is also of interest in that the livestock mutilation problem was investigated in 1974 by an official task force. I will thus begin my evaluation of the data obtained from other areas with a discussion of the incidents that have occurred in Colorado, Montana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.

This will be followed by a summary of information obtained from the other 19 states which furnished me with data on livestock mutilations. Seven states never responded to my inquiry. As for the remaining 20 states, the officials I contacted informed me either that their state had had no mutilations as defined by this project, or that they did not keep any central statistics on the problem. These states, which will not be mentioned again, include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and


-171-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


West Virginia.


Colorado Incidents

One of the first reported mutilations in the country to receive widespread publicity was the now-famous case of "Snippy" the horse. On September 9, 1967, at Alamosa, Colorado, an appaloosa horse named "Snippy" was found dead and mysteriously "mutilated." Numerous UFO sightings were reported in the area, which, according to the owner, were somehow involved with the animal's untimely demise.

       "Some residents of this area, including the 
       three-year-old appaloosa's owner, claimed 
       Snippy was a victim of a flying saucer after 
       his carcass was found with flesh stripped 
       from the head and back" (New Mexican, 
       Oct. 14, 1967).


The incident assumed even more bizarre proportions after a necropsy was performed on the animal. As a UPI (1967) story states:

       "The mystery surrounding the death of the 
       appaloosa from Alamosa deepened Monday 
       with the disclosure that a Denver pathologist 
       took a belated autopsy on the horse and found 
       the brain and stomach cavities to be empty. Ms. 
       Lewis said the doctor sawed into the brain 
       cavity and found 'absolutely nothing' and 
       opened the stomach expecting to find remains 
       of digestive organs, but found only a 'little 
       powdery residue.'"


Interest in and speculation about the Snippy case has continued up to the present. In the January 1980 issue of OMNI Magazine, this incident is rehashed again in an article entitled "Death on the Range -- UFO Update".


-172-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


       "Subsequent examination by a Denver 
       pathologist revealed that the flesh had been 
       cut with such precision as to preclude the 
       use of a knife. The examination also excluded 
       the possibility that predators had been 
       responsible for the animal's death" (Lebelson 
       1980: 28).


My interest in this incident became aroused when, after reading numerous articles stressing the bizarre nature of Snippy's death, I came across an article by Pearl M. Nicholas (1972), which appeared in the Valley Courier. The article stated that two .22 caliber bullets had been found in Snippy's body by Dr. Wallace Leary. Realizing that if this were true it would cast a different light on Snippy's death, I tried to locate Dr. Leary. After considerable effort, I finally discovered that he was now employed as a staff officer with the United States Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Leary told me that although he was contacted by the owner the day Snippy died, he did not examine the horse until more than A month later when he was given the carcass for use as a teaching specimen. Upon cleaning the skeleton, he said he, discovered what appeared to be two bullet holes. When I asked how he made this determination, he said he recognized what was clearly an entry and exit-type wound in the pelvic bone.

Although he found no bullets in the animal, Dr. Leary said he believed Snippy had been shot, -- perhaps by youths driving along a nearby highway. He said he thought it possible that Snippy, after being shot, "ran himself to death" through one of the many broken-down barbed wire fences that dotted his


-173-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


pasture. According to Dr. Leary, such an event would explain the wounds that were described to him the morning Snippy was found.

I asked him if any veterinarian had performed a necropsy on Snippy. He told me that about a month after Snippy died, a necropsy was performed by Dr. Robert O. Adams, now deceased, of the College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Science at Colorado State University. Dr. Leary stated that as far as he can recall, the necropsy revealed nothing unusual.

A more detailed account of the results of this necropsy was reported in the October 14, 1967 issue of the New Mexican (1967). The article also states that Dr. Adams' investigation of the carcass revealed nothing that could not be explained in natural terms., The following observations made by Dr. Adams are interesting, especially in view of the fact that Snippy's owner reportedly "declined to release the name of the pathologist because he requested secrecy" (UPI 1967).

       "Bacteria, birds and coyotes were responsible 
       for the absence of organs in the abdominal 
       cavity, Dr. Adams said. Predators had eaten 
       away part of the horse's rump, exposing the 
       cavity, he added. It was normal under the 
       circumstances that the brain cavity was devoid 
       of fluid, he said. Because all tissue was gone 
       from the skull, the opening in the back was 
       exposed to the air. Since the brain, after death,
       liquefied in hours, the fluid evaporated quickly 
       in the warm prairie air he said. It was at least 
       30 days after Snippy's death before anyone 
       examined the carcass, and the longest the fluid 
       could have remained would have been two 
       weeks, Dr. Adams said.

'I know it's going to pop the bubble.' Dr. Adams said, 'but the horse was not killed by a flying saucer. Dr. Adams said his findings at this



-174-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


       point are speculative, but 'there was some 
       evidence that severe infection had been present 
       in the right flank area. That can kill a horse in a 
       short time.' Dr. Adams also said there was 
       evidence that the skin in front of the shoulder 
       had been incised. This could mean, he said, that 
       someone found Snippy down and suffering and 
       cut his throat to end the pain. Dr. Adams said the 
       incision could have attracted birds and other 
       predators which stripped away the flesh from the
       neck and head" (New Mexican 1967).


In short, the information provided by these two veterinarians completely discredits the bizarre stories that have been circulating for the past 13 years about Snippy. Nevertheless, such rumors continue to persist. In fact, Snippy's skeleton -- originally prepared for a teaching specimen is apparently now on display in Alamosa as "the horse that got zapped by a UFO."

The case of "Snippy the horse" was merely a prelude of what was later to become a major phenomenon in the state of Colorado. During the decade that followed, hundreds of live-stock mutilations were reported by area ranchers. The problem was considered so serious that a reward of $25,000 was offered by several Colorado agencies for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for mutilating livestock.

The phenomenon seemed to peak in 1975, for between the months of April and December of that year, 203 reports were investigated by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Thirty-five suspected mutilations were examined by Colorado State University, 19 of which were found suitable for tests.


-175-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


Of these 19 animals, the university determined that 11 died of natural causes. In the remaining eight cases, the cause of death could not be determined. Five cases were confirmed as predator attacks and nine as willful mutilations. Three incidents were thought to involve a possible combination of the two. The university also determined that in all mutilations involving the use of sharp instruments, the cuts were made following the animal's death.

In a letter to the New Mexico State Police dated July 10, 1978, the CBI describes their investigations more explicitly:

       "During our investigation of the cattle 
       mutilation problem in Colorado, the CBI 
       laboratory examined approximately 40 hide 
       samples. of these, two were found to have 
       been cut with a sharp instrument. In a 
       six-month period, our agents spent 1,557 
       man-hours on this investigation, which 
       included undercover operations. We were 
       never able to identify any person or persons 
       as being responsible for these, so-called, 
       mutilations. The scientifically based evidence 
       obtained points to cattle which died of 
       natural causes being attacked by predators."


Reporters had a field day with livestock mutilations. in fact, in 1975, this topic was voted the top news story in the state by the Colorado Associated Press. The 1975 cases also provided the basis for one of the first books on livestock mutilations -- a small volume by Frederick W. Smith (1976) entitled "Cattle Mutilation: The Unthinkable Truth".

One of the many writers and reporters to develop a special interest in this phenomenon was a man by the name of Dane Edwards. Edwards was the editor of a small weekly newspaper in Brush until he "mysteriously" disappeared. According


-176-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


to Thompson (1979), Edwards had developed an uncanny familiarity with livestock mutilations. Then one day, he mysteriously disappeared. His wife filed a missing person's report. Eventually Edwards was traced to a motel in Denver, where he apparently left unpaid bills, but there the trail ended. Thompson (1979c) notes that before his disappearance, the newsman had hinted that his life was being threatened.

What ever happened to Dane Edwards? Was he "silenced" because he was getting too close to the truth, or was his disappearance deliberately engineered by the government for whom he allegedly worked as a secret agent? Speculation ran wild. But regardless of which theory one advocated, most people concerned about Edwards agreed on one thing -- that his disappearance had something to do with livestock mutilations (Smith 1976: 40-42).

Since the Edwards story was frequently being cited as evidence by those who claimed that there was something sinister behind the livestock mutilation phenomenon, I decided it worthwhile to investigate this incident further. On August 31, 1979, a reliable source informed me that Edwards had actually been fired by his newspaper and had reportedly moved to Texas to write a book on cattle mutilations. I later contacted Drusylla Georgeson, current publisher and owner of The Banner newspaper in Brush., In a letter dated December 31, 1979, she informed me that Edwards had been employed by The Banner from May through October 1975, when he was terminated because of poor business practices. She said that this was one of the reasons why


-177-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


Edwards left the area. In fact, she stated that she personally saw him leave a few days later with his children.

George C. Erianne, a friend of Edwards, informed me that Edwards had left Brush "owing money to everyone." In addition, I learned from the assistant district attorney in Denver that there is an outstanding warrant, -- filed March 1916 -- against Dane Edwards for defrauding the Denver Travel Lodge in November 1975.

Despite these rather revealing facts, stories began to circulate about Edwards' mysterious disappearance. According to an article which was published in the Brush Banner on December 10, 1975, Mrs. Edwards claimed that her husband was still missing and that she had filed a missing persons report in Colorado Springs and in Euless, Texas. The article goes on to make the following observation, which casts serious doubts on her statements:

       "The Banner telephoned the Euless and 
       Arlington, Texas Police Departments on Monday
        to verify the missing person report, and were 
       told that no reports were on file. The Colorado 
       Springs, Colorado Police Department stated that 
       a report had been filed, and was canceled on 
       Saturday afternoon, December 8th" (Brush 
       Banner 1975).


In short, on the basis of the evidence just cited, there is good reason to believe that Edwards rather than being spirited away because of involvement with the mutilation phenomena probably left Colorado because of unpaid debts and an outstanding arrest warrant.

Another piece of evidence which has frequently been


-178-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


cited as proof that the Colorado mutilations are conducted by some highly sophisticated group is the necropsy report submitted by a Colorado veterinarian, September 1, 1978, following an examination of a six-month-old Hereford steer that was reported mutilated. This necropsy, which was performed at the request of the sheriff's department was subsequently written up in two reports,-- a necropsy record and a necropsy report, in which the veterinarian offers his opinions of the incident based on data furnished in the necropsy record.

This veterinarian's report, which is taken as the gospel truth by a number of independent investigators, has many of the earmarks of the "classic mutilation" -- the animal drained of blood by some mysterious force prior to death, the removal of certain organs with a "sharp cutting instrument," and the lack of blood at the scene. To better understand the role which this veterinarian has played in promoting the mutilation phenomenon, his necropsy report is reproduced below:


Necropsy Report

(1) The entire animal was clean; appearing as though recently washed and brushed. No dirt or mud was present on, or between the claws of the hooves, and no blood was present at puncture or excision sites. No marks of physical restraint were evident.

(2) No evidence of terminal struggle was present, the animal being found in right lateral recumbency amid several. small Aspen trees in a normal postmortem position, head slightly downhill.

(3) The animal's left eye, anus, distal prepuse and penis were cleanly severed with a sharp cutting instrument in a practiced fashion. The distal 1/3 of the tongue and the lips on the left side were also removed with a sharp cutting instrument


-179-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


however; (a) multiple strokes were employed to remove the lips, inconsistent with the precision of the other excisions, and (b) in an anesethetized or freshly killed animal, the tongue can be readily grasped and extended beyond the point where it was severed, without removal of the lips necessary to gain access.

Based on examination findings, it is my opinion that the animal was captured and restrained by a chemical agent (injected behind the right elbow) which did not cause him to lie down nor fall. once under restraint, the following sequence appears evident:

(A) The animal was completely washed and dried.

(B) Removal of the animal's blood was begun via a 12-14 gauge needle inserted into the left jugular vein.

In the anesethetized or heavily sedated animal, the animal's own heart will continue to function and act as a pump until nearly all its blood has been drained.

The necropsy findings of subcutaneous and intramuscular hemorrhage and emphysema in the cervical and brisket regions indicate that at some point during this process, the needle became dislodged from the vein. These lesions are seen following death of an animal which has recently been treated by the administration of intravenous medication and caused the needle to become dislodged by struggling. This may coincide in this case with the administration of additional chemical restraint agent in the muscles of the back (wound and muscle lesion with emphysema in mid-theracic area).

(C) A second veinapuncture was accomplished in the left jugular, and removal of the animal's blood continued until nearly complete. Total exsanguination by this method is not possible.

(D) The eye, prepuce and penis, anus, lip, and tongue were then excised. With the majority of the animal's blood removed, bleeding from these peripheral sites would be almost nonexistent.

(E) The animal was then abandoned, still standing, and he moved to the point of discovery under his own power, collapsing and dying from cerebral anoxia. Muscle stores of energy not dependent upon available oxygen are present which would allow the animal to move a short distance.

To accomplish this process I believe would require; a minimum of two individuals; a period of 1-2 hours (primarily for cleaning the animal, as the exsanguination and excision of


-180-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


organs could be accomplished in 15-20 minutes or less); a capture gun, blowgun, or specially designed arrow; one or more sharp knives and/or scissors; hypodermic needles; and some knowledge of bovine anatomy and treatment procedures (but not in excess of that possessed by many ranchers who have observed and treated their own animals.

The method of utilizing the animals own heart as a. pump to accomplish exsanguination is only practiced, to my knowledge, in such places which seek to replace the blood with a preservative chemical in order to more adequately preserve the entire carcass or to replace the blood with colored latex for identification of the vessels for the teaching of anatomy.


To help determine whether or not the opinions and conclusions advocated in the necropsy report are supported by the facts contained in the necropsy record, a copy of this record is reproduced as follows:


Necropsy Record

HISTORY: Found dead @ 48 hrs. after previous observation, at which time no abnormalities were noted. Only moderate postmortem change and bloating evident at time of examination.

CLINICIAN'S DIAGNOSIS: Fatal anoxia from near total exsanguination.

INTEGUMENT & SUBCUTIS: In good flesh - haircoat clean and w/o signs of extensive trauma or contusions - two puncture wounds over left jugular vein at mid-cervical region - puncture wound on mid-thoracic dlorsum (see remarks).

CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM: (Pericardium, epicardium, niyocardium, coronary vessels, valves, arteries, veins, blood): Right ventricle slightly enlarged - coagulated blood in both ventricles - great vessels contained only small amounts of coagulated blood (@1/4 normal). Remaining cardiovascular system unremarkable.

LYMPHOHEMOPOIETIC SYSTEM: (Spleen, lymph nodes, lymphatics, tonsils, bone marrow, thymus): Spleen - not enlarged - necrotic, hemorrhagic, lacking in structural character. Remaining lymphohemopoietic system - unremarkable.

DIGESTIVE SYSTEM: (Lips, teeth, tongue, pharnyx, salivary glands, esophagus, stomach, intestine, cecum, rectum, anus, liver, gall bladder, pancreas, peritoneum): Lips - right side, normal - left side, freely mobile portions excised to expose buccal cavity.


-181-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


Rumen - @ 1/3 full of coarse roughage ingesta w/moderate fluid and gas distention no gross lesions.

Anus - anus and rectal sphincter excised

Liver - pale yellow in color, no gross abnormalities

Gall Bladder - distended w/ yellow/gold fluid - mucosa stained yellow/gold. Remaining digestive system - no gross lesions

MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM: (Musculature, skull, skeleton, ligaments, joints, tendons, bursae): No skeletal lesions noted. Area of muscular hemorrhage and necrosis 5x7cm, caudal to right radiohumeral articulation involving the lat. dorsi and triceps muscles to a depth of 3-4cm. 1-1/2x7cm area of hemorrhage in longissimus system at mid-thoracic region. No other gross lesions of skeletal muscle.

RESPIRATORY SYSTEM: (Nostrils, nasal passages, turbinates, sinuses, larnyx, trachea, bronchi, lungs, mediastinum, pleura): No gross lesions - hypostatic congestion of right lung.

UROGENITAL SYSTEM: (Kidney, ureters, bladder, urethara, gonads, accessory glands, genitalia, mammary glands):

Kidney - moderate perirenal edema - capsule indistinguishable - extremely hemorrhagic w/entensive necrosis of cortex of both kidneys

Urinary bladder - empty - unremarkable

Gonads - early castrate male (elastic band) - no scrotum nor testicular tissue present

Genitalia - distal prepuce and distal 3-4 in. of penis severed at body wall.

ENDOCRINE SYSTEM: (Thyroid, parathyroids, adrenals pituitary, pineal body): Not examined.

NERVOUS SYSTEM & SPECIAL SENSORY ORGANS: (Brain, spinal cord, meninges, nerves, ganglia, eyes, ears):

CNS - not evaluated.

Ears - tagged and ear notched - no gross lesions to external ear canal.

Eyes - right, unremarkable - left, excised w/o damage to palpebral tissues optic nerve severed at base of orbit.

INTEGUMENT CONT: @ 2dm right of midline - puncture wound caudal to right radio-humeral articulation - mobile portion of labia (maxillary and mandibular) on left side of jaw excised anus and rectal sphincter excised - distal prepuce and penis severed at body wall. Significant subcutaneous emphysema and


-182-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


hemorrhage into fascia and between muscle planes of ventral cervical region and brisket, and on dorsum, from mid-thoracic region to tailhead - Significant subcutaneous emphysema in dependent regions of all four legs.

REMARKS: Tissue samples taken: lung, kidney, liver, gall bladder, urinary bladder, spleen, and cardiac muscle. Rumen contents were also taken.


To evaluate these necropsy reports, I contacted seven very experienced veterinarians. Of these seven veterinarians, five were board certified pathologists. Four of them had had extensive experience in diagnostic work.

Six of them stated that the opinions as set forth by the veterinarian in the necropsy report were not supported by the data. Their comments ranged from "honorable and sincere, but misguided," to "a bunch of malarkey." One stated that the "conclusions drawn were ridiculous" while another commented "I laughed myself silly" reading this material.

One of the seven veterinarians declined to comment on this material, but he did offer an opinion on cattle mutilations in general. He stated that in all the examinations made by his laboratory in regard to cattle mutilations, no human involvement was over established. Rather, the animals died of natural causes and were subsequently mutilated by scavengers.

After having reviewed the comments from these veterinarians, I then wrote a letter to the Colorado veterinarian who had written these reports and requested him to answer 16 questions, which had been furnished to me by some of the veterinarians just cited. He eventually agreed to do so. The


-183-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


questions and his answers are as follows:

1. Was the enclosed necropsy record and necropsy report prepared by you?

ANSWER: Yes

2. Are they complete the way they are enclosed or are there additional documents concerning this examination which are missing?

ANSWER: Documents detailing the results of laboratory testing are not included.

3. If the record and report were prepared by you, has any additional information come to your attention in regards to this examination that would alter your conclusions?

ANSWER: None, although the postmortem removal of parts and organs should be considered as well as ante-mortem.

4. It is noted that the necropsy record contains a notation that tissue samples were taken in regards to the lung, kidney, liver, gallbladder, urinary bladder, spleen, and cardiac muscle. The report states that rumen contents were also taken. Were any examinations conducted in regards to these samples and if so, were the results of any significance to your observation?

ANSWER: Samples taken were submitted to State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory for toxological and histological analysis. Results were not significant to necropsy observations.

5. Would not one normally expect the loss of an eye, tongue, lips, anus and rectum from the predation of scavengers


-184-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


and carnivores if a dead animal should be left thirty-six hours in the field?

ANSWER: No. An eye or the tongue, perhaps, but the other parts missing in this case are not scavenger target organs and would only have been torn or removed to gain access to the intestines. The abdominal cavity was intact.

6. Is it not a rule rather than the exception for these animals to do a neat job and not leave either blood or a mess at the site of the carcass?

ANSWER: The neatness qualities inherent in beak or tooth are significantly different from those arising from a knife edge cut.

7. Would it not be normal to expect animals that are in confinement or in a feedlot to be dirty and those out on the range to have a clean, brushed hair coat and not have mud or dirt between their hooves?

ANSWER: No, it would not.

8. Was the possibility of tetanus considered inasmuch as the animal had been castrated with an elastic band?

ANSWER: No. The castration site had been completely healed for several months and no evidence of infection existed at this area.

9. Necrosis of the cortex of the kidney and necrosis of the spleen were reported on gross examination of the organs. Would it have been of interest to have had these lesions examined histologically?


-185-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


ANSWER: It might have, but it wasn't. Both histopathological studies and cultures were requested, were performed, and were not informative.

10. If one assumed that the necrosis of the kidney and spleen was caused by the drug injection and exsanguination, is it not true that the necrosis would not be developed adequately to be observed on gross inspection in as short a time interval as several hours?

ANSWER: Thirty-six hours is more than adequate time for the development of grossly observable necrosis, especially in a ruminant.

11. Would not the distended gallbladder and the rumen that was only one-third full suggest that the animal was off feed and ill for several days?

ANSWER: These conditions suggest only a limited feed intake, not the reasons for it, and the absence of any other intestinal pathology (which usually accompanies such illness) does not support a supposition of this nature.

12. In an animal that has been dead for thirty-eight hours, would there not have been considerable diffusion of blood and fluid from vessels into tissue or gravitation of blood, thus causing changes resembling exsanguination?

ANSWER: Blood does not diffuse. Loss of the fluid component of the blood through diffusion is possible to a limited degree, but that which remains, as well as the cellular component does not leave the vessels. Gravitation results in relocation


-186-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


within the vasculature of certain organs, such as the lungs, but the blood is still in the vessels.

13. Do you feel, knowing how rapidly blood clots, that it would be possible to bleed an animal to death with just two twelve to fourteen gauge needles in the jugular veins or would not repeated venipunctures as well as vacuum be necessary to remove appreciable amounts of blood?

ANSWER: This would be entirely possible, as originally stated.

14. Could not the clean removal of the eye suggest bird scavengers?

ANSWER: Not when the optic nerve has been severed by a single stroke of a sharp instrument leaving all nerve fibers cut in a single plane.

15. Although the puncture wounds of side and back could be from a dart gun, could they have not also been traumas that could have allowed entry of bacteria as clostridium septicum or bacillus?

ANSWER: Possible, but these were the only lesions noted, and their locations are extremely unlikely places for traumatic wounds.

16. Would it not be true that if the animal could still move, it would still bleed and evidence of blood should have been on the face, tail, and perineal hair if the anus or tongue had been excised before death?

ANSWER: Not necessarily. Muscle performance is


-187-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


dependent upon energy which is produced and stored in the cell itself, not blood. The blood "restocks" the cell, but does not provide directly useable energy to it. Thus, a certain amount of muscle function is possible without the presence of blood at all. These circumstances, however are rarely ever encountered except in situations of this sort.

I also questioned the veterinarian about his professional qualifications. He replied that his "experience with the field of veterinary medicine spans six years." However, on March 5, 1980, I learned from the Colorado Board of Veterinary Medicine that the only veterinarian in the state with his name had been licensed to practice medicine only two years. More specifically, the information furnished by the board indicates that this person graduated from veterinary school on May 13, 1978. On May 25, 1978 this person was licensed to practice medicine. The 1980 Directory of the American Veterinarian Medical Association also states that this individual graduated from veterinarian school in 1978.

In short, it appears that this veterinarian performed the necropsy on the alleged mutilation victim less than four months after he graudated from veterinarian school. It would thus appear from his answer that he is including, as part of his experience with veterinary medicine, the time he spent as a student, which I suggest is an unusual inclusion.

In summary, many of his interpretations can be questioned. In fact, six veterinarians, as previously noted,


-188-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


totally discredit the general thesis he sets out in his necropsy report. Many of his conclusions are suspect such as his statement that the two puncture marks in the vicinity of the animal's left jugular vein is an injection site. For as Dr. Howard J. Sherrod of the Valverde Animal Clinic in Corrales points out, there are several plausible explanations for such marks. According to him, after a cow dies and begins to bloat, the skin becomes taut and in some places, thinner and more tender. When this happens carrion birds such as buzzards sometimes puncture holes through the carcass attempting to get at the blood vessel.

Dr. Sherrod also points out that such marks could also indicate a snake bite. Such bites, according to him, are usually found in the head or neck regions. However, he notes that these bite holes would be relatively close together and would be hard to find after a short period of time.

Although the veterinarian claims the cuts on the animal were made with a sharp instrument, he does not specify how he arrived at this conclusion. Interestingly, it is the exposed organs -- in this case the left ear and left lip -- that are missing in the steer. Also consistent with scavenger activity is the type of organs removed -- eye, lips, anus, penis, and part of the tongue. The veterinarian also argues that the lack of blood and mess at the site indicates that the mutilation was executed by a sophisticated operation. However, as I have noted in Chapter Three, it seems to be the rule rather than the exception for scavengers to do a neat job.


-189-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


Montana Incidents

A rash of livestock mutilations were reported in Montana in 1974 and 1975. The problem was apparently considered serious enough that the Montana Stockgrowers Association posted a reward of $1,000 for information on persons guilty of mutilating livestock.

A number of incidents occurred in Cascade County, many of which were investigated by Deputy Sheriff Keith Wolverton.. In 1976 Captain Wolverton together with Roberta Donovan, a former newspaper reporter, wrote a book entitled Mystery Stalks the Prairie, which contained a sensationalized account of these cases. Livestock mutilations, however, were only one of the mysteries that "stalked the prairie," for the book also discusses sightings of UFOs and hairy monsters (Donovan and Wolverton 1976).

Other investigators and writers have taken issue with the Cascade County cases. In an article published in Livestock News and Views, Leland Cade (1975) makes the following observation:

       "Investigators in the Cascade and Madison 
       Counties Sheriff's Offices have reported that 
       'very sharp instruments were used.' Although 
       the claims have been made, there has apparently 
       been no laboratory examinations to confirm 
       them."


In the same article, Mons Teigen, secretary of the Montana Stockgrowers Association, is quoted as saying:

       "We met with the Sheriff in Cascade and 
       surrounding counties. All I saw was slides --
       it wasn't convincing. You can't tell anything from 
       a slide. No laboratory reports were offered."



-190-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


Laboratory reports, however, are available for some of the alleged victims. In fact, the diagnostic laboratory of the Montana Department of Livestock has examined the carcasses of between 24 and 40 mutilated animals. According to information furnished to me, all of these mutilations were attributed to carrion eaters. In regard to the same tests, Leland Cade (1975) makes the following statement:

       "Hubbel said his laboratory had looked at 35 
       and that 'we have found nothing suspicious, 
       nothing uncommon... In one case the lips were 
       gone, the rectal area gone. The animal had been 
       killed by lightning but we had to look hard to 
       prove it."



Arkansas Incidents

The first mutilations in Arkansas were reported in Benton County in April 1978. By the end of the year, over 20 incidents had been reported in that area.

In 1979, reports of mutilations began to come in from other parts of the state. To help deal with the situation, the Arkansas State Police appointed Sgt. Doug Fogley to coordinate the statewide investigation of these incidents.

In April that year, Sgt. Fogley, together with another local law officer testified at Senator Schmitt's hearing in Albuquerque that there had been 28 mutilations in Arkansas all of them "confirmed" cases. Mutilations continued to be reported throughout the state. By July, the problem was considered so serious that the Arkansas Cattlemen's Association announced that it was offering a reward of $1,000 for information


-191-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible persons who have been mutilating cattle in Benton and Franklin Counties.

That fall, however, new developments took place which seriously undermined the validity of many of the official statements that had been made about these Arkansas cases.

On October 15, 1979, Sgt. Fogley informed me that the law officer who had investigated the greatest number of livestock mutilations in Arkansas had been terminated by his agency, following a 30-day suspension. The underlying factor in his dismissal, according to Fogley, was his "inability to tell the truth" -- an "inability" very much evident in the official reports he had submitted on livestock mutilations.

Sgt. Fogley pointed out that he has since determined that the reports filed by this former officer contain gross inaccuracies and deliberate false statements. As an example, Fogley cited the case of a cow which had been found lying on her belly, her legs sprawled out to the side, and her head extended straight in front of her body. The report stated that her legs were broken, which, according to Sgt. Fogley was simply not true.

Sgt. Fogley also told me that he was prepared to inform the media that the Arkansas State Police had drawn invalid conclusions about cattle mutilations -- conclusions that had been based upon reports furnished by law enforcement officers that contained "deliberately furnished false in formation.

Sgt. Fogley maintained that Arkansas authorities are


-192-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


now convinced that over 98 percent of the reported livestock mutilations in the state are the work of scavengers aided by the normal decomposition of the carcass. He admitted that cultists or publicity seekers could be responsible for some of the incidents. However, even if this were so, he pointed out that the percentage involved would be extremely small in terms of the total number of reported mutilations.

Many of Sgt. Fogley's observations were further documented in a study conducted that fall by Dr. Nancy H. Owen, an anthropologist at the University of Arkansas. Dr. Owen's study is of interest in that it helps dispell many of the myths -- some of them widely circulated that surround the Arkansas cases.

One of the most highly publicized finds in Arkansas, and one which evoked considerable interest in New Mexico, was the discovery of drugs in some of the Benton County animals.

Owen (1980: 15) confirms this discovery with the following observation:

       "Analyses performed by the Animal 
       Diagnostic Laboratory at Oklahoma State 
       University revealed the presence of drugs in 
       three animals -- succinycholine in the horse, 
       santonin in a yearling bull, and mescaline in 
       a bull calf."


Further investigation revealed that two of these drugs have veterinary use.

       "Santonin is used as a wormer. A rather 
       dangerous drug, it is no longer on the market. 
       This doesn't mean it is no longer available 
       locally, for many older Benton County residents 
       do their own veterinary work using supplies 
       they have on hand."



-193-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


Succinycholine, she points out, is used as a muscle relaxant, "an interesting piece of information in view of the fact that the rancher had castrated the horse the previous morning."

Interestingly, the report of this incident was circulated at the law enforcement portion of Senator Schmitt's 1979 conference as evidence of a "classic mutilation." The facts of this case are as follows:

A horse colt, 18 months old, weighing 800 pounds, was castrated on Friday morning by the owner, and the horse was reportedly observed Friday night seen standing by a fence. The horse was found dead the following morning by the owner.

Upon inspection of the animal, the investigating officers found all reproductive organs had been removed, along with the tongue. This was surgically done with precision. No blood was visible at the scene of the death -- no signs of a struggle by the animal was apparent. There was a small amount of blood found on the animal's rear leg. No other apparent wounds were observed externally. The animal did show signs of apparent grazing just prior to death as there was fresh grass in the mouth, and this was stuck to the teeth.

Dr. Gary France of the Pearidge Veterinary Clinic did a postmortem examination. He also took tissue and blood samples and forwarded them to Oklahoma State University, Diagnostic Laboratory. The veterinary report stated that both testicles had been removed at the external inguinal ring, with a minimal amount of blood staining the surrounding tissue -- no major


-194-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


discovery since the horse had been castrated. The penis had been severed at about the middle of the pelvis. A possible injection site was noted at the right mid-cervical area over the right jugular vein. The report also states that the abdominal cavity was filled with approximately four gallons of blood, some of which had clotted.

The official report also contains a laboratory report from the Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory at Oklahoma State University, which confirms the presence of a significant concentration of succinylcholine in the blood sample. No additional information was presented in the official report.

I decided to further investigate this incident myself. On July 9, 1979, I asked Doyle Potter, a Santa Fe druggist, to provide me with information about succinycholine. In particular, I told him I wanted to know if there was any reason why such a drug would be found in a horse. Potter informed me that succinylcholine was a muscle relaxant used extensively throughout the United States during the castration of horses. He said the drug, which was usually adminstered by an injection, was relatively unstable in that it was a "guess and by golly" system as to how much of it should be used, and how long it would put a large animal down. Potter advised that the individual doing the castration should be very proficient, because if he did not know what he was doing, the horse could get up in the middle of the operation and possibly bleed to death.

On August 20, 1979, I discussed this incident with


-195-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


Dr. Albert E. McChesney, director of the Animal Diagnostic Center at Colorado State University. He advised me that succinylcholine metabolizes very rapidly in the body, and thus is relatively difficult to identify. He stated that the fact that this drug was located at all in the horse, indicates that the animal must have been given a large overdose, which, according to him, would undoubtedly have caused the animal's death.

I later communicated with Dr. France, the veterinarian who performed the postmortem examination. He informed me that in his final observation, the horse had been "put down" by an overdose of succinylcholine. Interestingly, when later interviewed by Dr. Owen on November 18, 1979, Dr. France stated that he didn't know the horse had been castrated.

       "It was a stallion the way I understood it. 
       You're the first one that's ever mentioned to 
       me it was castrated the day before."


In short, the facts strongly suggest that the horse had accidentally been overdosed by the rancher performing the castration and that this contributed to the animal's death.

Mescaline, the third drug found in an Arkansas animal, unlike the other two, has no known veterinary use. Rather, it is an alkaloid derivative of the peyote cactus which is available to grazing animals in the Arkansas area. Another possible explanation for the presence of this drug was suggested to Dr. Owen in an interview with the animal's owner. The latter complained to her that he suspected that "hippies" were camping on his property. It should be noted that mescaline as well as the


-196-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


peyote plant from which it is commonly derived, is a widely used hallucinogenic drug. Either explanation could very well account for the presence of mescaline in the bull calf, for as Dr. Clair Hibbs (1974) points out, livestock have the unfortunate habit of eating anything, including poisons and anti-coagulants if they are left unattended in areas accessible to them.

Two other incidents discussed by Dr. Owen have interesting parallels in New Mexico. Like the clamp marks reported on some of the mutilated animals in Dulce, rope marks were discovered around both hind hocks of a mutilated calf found in Benton County, Arkansas. The official report states that although the animal was discovered within 75 feet of the owner's home, evidence indicated that it had been dragged 1/4 of a mile from the lower pasture where it had apparently died. Like the clamp marks reported in New Mexico, this discovery has also been cited as dramatic evidence that livestock mutilations are being executed by some sophisticated organization.

Further investigation by Dr. Owen, however, produced a rather ordinary explanation for the presence of these marks.

       "Upon interviewing the owner, the mystery 
       was quickly cleared up. He told me that a 
       young boy, who periodically exercises his 
       horses, discovered the dead calf one day while 
       out riding. As a favor to the owner, he dragged 
       the calf up to the house so that he could find it. 
       The boy forgot to inform the owner about what 
       he had done until several days later. By that 
       time, the Sheriff's office had already 
       investigated the incident" (Owen 1980: 16).


The other incident with interesting parallels in New


-197-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


Mexico is the alleged discovery of a cow found dead and mutilated right in the farmer's barn. The sheriff's office, as Dr. Owen points out, does indeed have a photograph of a dead cow in a barn a photograph shown on television several times as dramatic evidence of the "great skill of the 'mutilators' in doing their work undetected."

However, further investigation again revealed that even this mysterious incident had a logical explanation, for as Dr. Owen points out, the animal in this photograph was not mysteriously killed and mutilated.

       "It was found sick in the pasture by the 
       owner, who moved it to the barn where it was 
       treated by a local veterinarian. It died shortly 
       afterwards of blackleg. Around the same time,
       the same farmer discovered the mutilated 
       carcass of a yearling bull which had been dead 
       for several days. The animal was examined by 
       the veterinarian and investigated by officers 
       from the Sheriff's department, who took 
       photographs not only of that animal, but also of 
       the dead cow in the barn" (Owen 1980, 15).


This case is of interest because of its similarity to an incident that recently occurred in New Mexico. During a recent interview, one rancher told me that about a year ago he had found his one-year-old hog dead and mutilated in his locked barn. He told me that the 150-pound hog had three holes by its ear and that the rear end had been cut. He told me he had fed the animal at approximately 5 p.m. the previous evening. When he went to check on it the following morning, he found it dead in the locked barn. Nothing else had been disturbed.

Upset about the incident, he summoned an official from


-198-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


Espanola to investigate the incident. The inspector, upon examining the carcass, concluded that the animal had been killed by a bear. However, he offered no explanation as to how the carcass had gotten inside a locked barn.

This incident did appear to be a perplexing one until I interviewed the owner's son-in-law. The latter said he remembered this incident quite well. However, he pointed out that the pig was not in a barn but was in an open pen, which would have been readily accessible to other animals, including bears.

One other Arkansas incident worthy of special mention is the case of the mutilated animal in which a mysterious shaft of light appears to emanate from its torso, as revealed in a photograph taken at the scene. This photograph, according to Dr. Owen (1980: 14) has been cited as evidence of a possible connection between mutilations and UFOs.

The interesting thing about this photograph was that it was shown in a documentary and at a conference, both of which were covered by the media and televised. I attended this conference which was held in Little Rock, Arkansas, and also observed this photograph. The claim was made during the presentation that this mysterious shaft of light, said to be invisible to the naked eye, also appeared in other photographs taken of the same animal using different cameras and film. Later that day, in a private conference with the law officer who made the presentation, I suggested to him that the shaft of light appeared to be nothing more than "a static spark," which


-199-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


sometimes is created if you rewind the film too rapidly.

Dr. Owen's study independently confirmed my own observations. In her report, she states that she too was curious about the photograph and had subsequently questioned the police photographer who had taken the picture. He told her the shaft of light was "a static spark." He also pointed out that although he did take other photographs of the animal, the light leak appeared in only that one picture (Owen 1980: 14).


Oklahoma Incidents

In 1974 a special task force was organized in Oklahoma to investigate the cattle mutilation phenomenon, and the results of which were to be reported to the current governor, David Boren. The people assigned to this task force included state veterinarians, veterinary pathologists from Oklahoma State University, the director of Radiation Protection at the Oklahoma State Department of Health, the director of theft investigation for the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association, a representative from the governor's office, investigators from the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, and the commissioner of Public Safety.

On March 3, 1975, this task force prepared a report for the governor covering the joint investigation of 26 cattle deaths, as well as the results of contacts with officials from other states. Necropsies were performed on all 26 animals by Oklahoma State University.

The task force concluded that the "dismemberment or


-200-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


so-called mutilation of cattle was from scavenger animals." Dr. J. W. Holecombe, state veterinarian for the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture made the following statement:

       "The evidence... in my opinion is so strong 
       and factual in my concluding of the deaths 
       and dismemberments and/or mutilations 
       were caused by natural conditions, including 
       malnutrition, anemia from parasitism, 
       weather stress; and both predatory and 
       scavenger animals and birds."


Dr. Roger Panciera, veterinary pathologist at Oklahoma State University also observed:

       "All investigations that have been completed 
       have indicated death due to natural causes, 
       death due to disease.' In no case has the 
       observation and opinion of task force 
       indicated man as a primary .factor in death 
       or mutilation."


On July 20, 1979, I sent a letter to authorities in Oklahoma asking whether the conclusions reached by this task force also applied to mutilations subsequently investigated. I received the following reply:

       "The special investigation section of the 
       Oklahoma Highway Patrol continued to 
       monitor the cattle death phenomenon closely 
       for approximately a year after out formal 
       report. Although there were some new 
       reports, there were no cases that would 
       cause any official modification of our existing 
       report."


Twenty-eight incidents have been reported in Oklahoma since 1975, the most recent one being in April 1979. Authorities have determined that these animals had died of natural causes, their carcasses subsequently being attacked by scavengers.


-201-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


Incidents Reported in Other States

The following is a brief summary of the mutilations reported in other states from which information was obtained. For some of these states, more detailed information, including reports submitted by veterinarians and other officials, is available in the appendix section. For the sake of convenience, the states are listed in alphabetical order.

ARIZONA: Several cases were reported in the past three years, none of which involved humans. This information was furnished to me in a letter dated June 26, 1979.

IDAHO: Several cattle mutilations were reported in 1976; one in 1978 and one in 1979. The investigators stated in a letter dated July 6,, 1979, that these mutilations were caused. either by predators or by publicity seekers.

ILLINOIS: Between 1976 and 1978, there were three reported mutilations, all of which occurred in Christian County, Illinois. No determination was made.

IOWA: Authorities are investigating approximately 12 cases, which they believe are human-induced. A spokesman advised that this is a local situation, and that investigation is currently underway. None of these mutilations have been confirmed by Iowa State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory.

KANSAS: No cases have been confirmed by the Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory at the Kansas State University. During a conversation on March 5, 1980, with Philip S. Arkow -- president of the Colorado Federation of Animal Welfare Agencies and secretary of the National Animal Control Association in Colorado Springs, he informed me that he had recently returned from a workshop on mutilations sponsored jointly by Kansas State University and the Kansas State Animal Control Division.

Arkow stated that a paper was presented at this workshop by Dr. George Kennedy of the Pathology Department of Kansas State University. At the workshop, it was concluded that in all cases investigated in Kansas since 1976, no evidence of human involvement had been discovered. Rather, these mutilations were determined to be the results of normal predator and scavenger activity.

KENTUCKY: The one incident investigated was resolved as "post-death changes made by wild animals." This information was furnished in a letter dated June 15, 1979.

LOUSIANA: Fifteen cases have been reported all of them "unexplained."

MINNESOTA: According to authorities at the School of Medicine at South Dakota State University, all mutilations they examined were caused by small animals feeding on the carcasses.

MISSOURI: According to authorities at the Animal Diagnostic Laboratory at the University of Missouri School of Medicine, all mutilations they examined were attributed to damage done by birds and other carnivores.

NEVADA: Several mutilations were reported during the past few years, according to information contained in their files.


-203-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


Only two were thought to be caused by humans.

NEBRASKA: Since 1974, the Nebraska Highway Patrol has investigated between 130-150 reported mutilations. Of these incidents, 20 necropsies were performed. In only one case was the mutilation caused by a human. This individual was later apprehended and prosecuted. According to a letter dated August 7, 1979, this person had been greatly influenced by media accounts of mutilations.

NEW JERSEY: One incident was reported in 1978. Investigation revealed that the mutilation had been done by a practicing veterinarian, who had necropsied the animal in order to determine the cause of death. This information was furnished in a letter dated June 27, 1979.

NORTH DAKOTA: The chief agent of the Bureau of Criminal Investigation informed me that authorities in that state had determined that all the mutilations they had investigated were caused by skunks, coyotes, badgers, and other wild animals.

OREGON: Nine reported mutilations were investigated. The two which were suitable for testing were examined by the police laboratory, which reported finding chew marks on the carcass.

SOUTH DAKOTA: At least 12 cases were examined by authorities in 1974. Human involvement was ruled out in each case. According to the Animal Diagnostic Laboratory at South Dakota State University, each incident bore evidence of predatory animals.


-204-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


TEXAS: In the specimens examined by the Animal Diagnostic Center at Texas A&M University, human involvement was definitely eliminated as a possible cause in each case.

UTAH: In a letter dated July 27, 1979, authorities stated that all mutilations they investigated had been resolved. Natural causes were responsible for most of them. In the few cases where human involvement was determined, the mutilators turned out to be pranksters involved in an initiation scavenger hunt at their college.

WISCONSIN: A number of cases were investigated in Wisconsin in 1975 and 1976. According to information furnished in a letter dated July 24, 1979, authorities had determined that all the deaths were due to natural causes. In most of these cases, the mutilations were caused by predators.

WYOMING: According to the state veterinarian at Wyoming State University Laboratory, the mutilations investigated in that state are caused by predators.


Summary and Conclusions

In summary, it is evident from the data presented in this chapter that the vast majority of the incidents investigated in other states have been resolved by authorities as "predator/ scavenger damage." This is particularly true in states such as Oklahoma where the problem has been more thoroughly studied. The role played by the media in fostering the mutilation phenomenon is also apparent in this chapter, particularly in the


-205-




___________________________________________________________

[page break]


discussion of the Colorado and Arkansas incidents.

As noted in my introductory remarks, the information obtained from other states closely parallels that which I collected in New Mexico. As in New Mexico, the media accounts from other states tend to promote the bizarre nature of livestock mutilations, whereas the data received from qualified investigators and experienced veterinarians basically confirm the conclusions I have reached in my New Mexico investigation -- that the vast majority of reported mutilations are induced by scavengers.

In the few cases where human involvement was determined, the culprits were not highly sophisticated "surgeons" but pranksters, publicity seekers, and other ordinary individuals. In short, the "classic mutilation" as a widespread phenomenon endangering the livestock industry does not stand up to close scrutiny of the facts.

In regard to drugs, see Appendix IV.


-206-