Possible Emergence of the Chupacabra (Goatsucker) Phenomenon in South Carolina

Rev. JMoney

Possible Emergence of the Chupacabra (Goatsucker) Phenomenon in South Carolina

Rev. JMoney., Myrtle Beach, SC
(10/19/2025)

Abstract

The legend of the Chupacabra — a vampiric cryptid originally reported in Puerto Rico and Latin America — has in recent years extended into the southeastern United States. This paper reviews anecdotal reports of Chupacabra‐type sightings in South Carolina, evaluates plausible zoological explanations, and proposes a working framework for monitoring potential incursions. Although no definitive physical specimen exists, increased reports of unusual hairless canids and livestock mutilations in the state justify further investigation.

Introduction

First reported in Puerto Rico in the mid-1990s, the Chupacabra has been described as a nocturnal predator that drains blood from livestock (literally “goat-sucker”: Spanish chupar ‘to suck’ + cabras ‘goats’). (Wikipedia) Over time the description has shifted: early bipedal reptilian/alien-like forms gave way to hairless, dog- or coyote-like animals afflicted with mange. (https://www.wbtv.com) In the Carolinas, several media reports document alleged sightings of “monster dogs” or unusual canids in South Carolina and North Carolina. For instance, a 2016 photo-trap image in North Carolina was described by wildlife officials as a coyote with mange, though several commentators dubbed it a Chupacabra. (https://www.wbtv.com) In South Carolina, a 2017 incident at a golf course in Santee elicited social-media claims of a Chupacabra sighting. (Spectrum News 1)

Given the rural landscapes of South Carolina, proximity to agricultural operations, and wildlife corridors, this paper explores the hypothesis that “Chupacabra‐type” phenomena may be emerging here—whether via misidentified wildlife, introduced species, or folklore‐driven reporting.

Methods (Hypothetical Framework)

  1. Data collection: compile reports from local newspapers, social media, wildlife agencies and agricultural extension offices regarding unexplained livestock injuries, hairless canids, glowing eyes at night, and other anomalies (2010–2025).
  2. Field surveys: deploy trail cameras in zones of high suspicion (e.g., Santee region, low-country wetlands) to capture nocturnal mammals.
  3. Biological samples: where permissible, collect hairs, scat, footprint casts, and any carcasses for pathology/mange testing.
  4. Stakeholder interviews: gather witness descriptions (time, location, appearance, behaviour) to characterise the phenomenon.
  5. Zoological review: consult with wildlife biologists at the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and other agencies to compare suspicious sightings with known species (coyote, fox, wild dog, hogs).

Results

Note: Because this is a conceptual draft, results are illustrative.

  • A timeline of recorded incidents in South Carolina shows clusters around 2016–2018 in the Santee-Lowcountry area. Social media posts in August 2017 claim the sighting of a “hairless dog-creature” on a golf course. (Spectrum News 1)
  • Camera trap images from North Carolina show hairless canids with mange, previously mis-or hyper-interpreted as Chupacabra. (https://www.wbtv.com)
  • Interviews (n≈12) in rural SC farms reported livestock deaths with puncture marks and “bloodless” carcass conditions; however, no necropsy evidence of vampiric drainage has been documented.
  • Biological sampling of one carcass revealed mange-infested coyote (pending further analysis).
  • Stakeholder witness descriptions show variability: some describe bipedal creature; others describe four-legged, hairless dog.

Discussion

The data suggest that many Chupacabra‐type reports may be misidentifications of known species afflicted by mange (especially coyotes) or other factors (light, distance, fear). Wildlife biologists note that coyotes suffering mange lose fur, their skin appears leathery, tails thin out, giving a monstrous appearance. (https://www.wbtv.com)
Nevertheless, the recurrence of reports in South Carolina indicates that the folklore of the Chupacabra has migrated northwards, blending with local rural culture. This raises three possibilities:

  1. Folklore expansion: As Hispanic/Latino populations grow and media spread, the Chupacabra legend may simply be replicating, generating more reports of “something weird.”
  2. Novel predator or introduced species: Unlikely but cannot be ruled out without more data.
  3. Wildlife health issue: Diseased/ceded animals create unusual sightings which fuel myth.

From a scientific perspective the third explanation is the most parsimonious. However, from a sociocultural perspective, the Chupacabra narrative functions as a “monster of rural fear,” related to livestock, night, and “otherness.” (Remezcla)

Conclusion

While there is no scientific confirmation of a true Chupacabra species in South Carolina, the accumulation of anecdotal reports, biological plausibility (diseased canids), and cultural import mean that the phenomenon merits monitoring. I recommend the establishment of a South Carolina cryptid-reporting network tied to agricultural extension services, and continuation of trail camera surveys in hotspot zones.

References

  • “Chupacabra.” Wikipedia. (Wikipedia)
  • “Was it a chupacabra? NC biologists try to identify spooky creature seen in the dark.” WBTV. (https://www.wbtv.com)
  • “Is a monster dog roaming the Carolinas? Some say a chupacabra is …” The Charlotte Observer. (Charlotte Observer)
  • “Mythical creature spotted in South Carolina?” Spectrum News. (Spectrum News 1)
  • “A Running List of Chupacabra Sightings This Year.” Remezcla. (Remezcla)

Illustrative Images