clearly indicates that the carcass was damaged by predators and/or scavengers. In most cases, the animal had died first of natural causes.
Shortly after the results of my investigation were released to the press, several individuals have stated that no classic mutilations had occurred during the course of my project as though this would explain my sincere, but obviously misguided verdict of scavenger-induced damage. I agree that no classic mutilations have occurred during Operation Animal Mutilation. However, I would like to know their basis for their statement. More specifically, I wish to address the following questions to them:
1) How many of the mutilations that I investigated in this project did they also investigate?
2) Specifically, which ones did they investigate?
3) How do these mutilations differ from the “classic” cases with which they are comparing them?
Can these questions be answered, or is their observation just another one of those unsupported statements that I have encountered so frequently during the course of my project? I cannot answer this, but I can point out the results of my own analysis of the 90 mutilations reported prior to the commencement of Operation Animal Mutilation.
As I have noted in Chapter Three, a verdict of predator/scavenger-induced damage is clearly indicated in the vast majority of cases in which sufficient evidence is presented in the report. Even in those few cases in which the damage was determined to be human-induced, the resulting mutilation bore little resemblance to the “classic” case. In short, during my investigation of the 117 mutilations that have been reported in New Mexico since 1975, I have not found one single case which, after careful scrutiny of available evidence, could be confirmed as a “classic mutilation.”
Are the conclusions that I have reached unique? To the contrary, the data obtained from qualified investigators and experienced veterinarians in other states only confirms what I have discovered in New Mexico. In fact, I have found no credible source who differs from this finding, nor has one piece of hard evidence been presented or uncovered that would cause me to alter this conclusion. But perhaps it is better to let the experts speak for themselves. The following statements are excerpts from letters received from veterinarians affiliated with various state veterinary diagnostic laboratories. The complete contents of these communications can be found in the appendix section of this report.
Dr. Harry D. Anthony, Kansas State University:
“It is my opinion that most of these carcass problems occur after the natural death of the animal and predators or scavengers feed on the remaining loose tissues of the carcass, such as lips, eyelids, and the external genital organs.”
Dr. S. M. Dennis, Kansas State University:
“Many animal mutilation reports are a result of false or incomplete information being furnished by the rancher to law enforcement officers investigating the dead animals, and many times by inexperienced and untrained law enforcement officers putting down what they see in a manner which tends to be very dogmatic… it appears to be a quirk of human nature for ranchers not to want to admit that an animal of theirs died either by poisoning or due to predation.”
Dr. L. G. Morehouse, University of Missouri:
“It is the opinion of our pathologists that a fair percentage of animals that come to post-mortem have been eaten on by birds and carnivorous (animals). This has been observed for many years. It is also the opinion of our pathologists that the percentage of dead animals that have lost parts to carnivorous (animals) has not increased in recent years, although the number of clients that believe their animals have been mutilated by humans or some other unexplained phenomenon have increased.”
Dr. William J. Quinn, State of Montana:
“In summary, I believe that the cattle mutilations are due to flesh-eating birds and small mammals and not by an unknown person or group of persons.”
L. D. Kintner, University of Missouri:
“Surprisingly as it may seem to the uninitiated, many of the scavengers make a clean cut as might be done by a surgeon with a very sharp knife. In fact, many of the animals that are presented to our post-mortem laboratory have loss of eyes, tongue, anus, and rectum within only hours after death.”
Dr. Roger Panciera, Oklahoma State University:
(Commenting in a special task force report to the governor of Oklahoma in regards to cattle mutilations):
“All Investigations that have been completed have indicated death due to natural causes and death due to disease. In no case has the observation and opinion of task force indicated man has been a primary factor in death or mutilation.”
Dr. M. W. Vorhies, South Dakota State University:
“Obviously, we should not dismiss the possibilities of human involvement, but it has been our experience that in all instances, we could identify evidence of predatory animals being involved in missing parts of animals dying of some natural causes.
Dr. William Sippel, Texas A & M University:
“In short, we have found no evidence of mutilation by humans of the specimens presented to our laboratory.”
Dr. Robert L. Poulson, Utah Department of Agriculture:
“Livestock mutilations in Utah have been minimal, with the exception of a few cases that were reported which apparently resulted from natural or disease conditions and later mutilated by pranksters or predatory animals.”
In short, as you can see from the foregoing excerpts, the conclusions of professionals from other states overwhelmingly corroborate my own findings. They all agree that the carcasses they have examined have been damaged—by animals and birds rather than highly skilled surgeons. As I have noted previously, in order to eliminate a verdict of predator/scavenger damage, it must be shown that the incisions in the carcass have been made by a knife or other sharp instrument. As I have illustrated in Chapter Four, incisions made by scavengers can resemble knife cuts, especially when viewed at a distance. In those cases in which the cut appears to be smooth, microscopic analysis is necessary to determine whether or not that cut was made by a sharp instrument. In order for such a verdict to be reached, microscopic analysis must reveal that the hair follicles have been cut perpendicular to the plain. If this cannot be shown, then the damage cannot be attributed to humans.
Although “surgical precision” is the major criterion used to distinguish scavenger-induced damage from the “classic mutilations” the latter is also attributed with other characteristics that reportedly set it apart from carcasses damaged by birds and animals. The other attributes of the classic mutilation, as I will illustrate below, can also be explained logically.
For example, one major characteristic is the removal of certain types of organs—namely the sexual organs, tongue, eye, and ear. However, as I have pointed out previously, these are the same organs normally removed by scavengers. This point is well illustrated by an experiment conducted in Arkansas on September 4, 1979. Officials of the Washington County Sheriffs Department, which sponsored this experiment, monitored a calf, which had just died, for more than 30 hours.
“By the time they completed their vigil, the animal’s tongue was gone, its eye removed to the bony orbit, anus ‘cored’, internal organs (intestines, bladder, etc.) expelled, and little blood was evident at the scene. Who were the mutilators? Blowflies, skunks, and buzzards, who were still feeding on the carcass when the last photographs were taken September 6 at 11.00 a.m.”
This experiment also illustrates another point that I have made repeatedly in this report—that the types of organs removed and the amount of damage done to the carcass depends on when the investigator arrives at the scene and which scavengers are present in the area.
Another claim made for the classic mutilation is that the animal is devoid of blood. Such a claim is rarely substantiated by a necropsy report. Rather, it seems to be based primarily on the apparent lack of blood at the scene. Such a lack, however, is easily explainable, particularly in view of the fact that most mutilations appear to be done after the animal has died. As noted previously, the blood settles to the lower port of the cavity and coagulates, thus giving the appearance that the animal is devoid of blood. Any blood on the carcass or on the ground is quickly consumed by scavengers—such as the blowflies observed in the Arkansas experiment. To quote Dr. L. D. Kintner of the University of Missouri: “It is the rule rather than the exception for these animals to do a neat
