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 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 West Virginia.