ssullivan wrote: "Long live the Chupacabra...and all other non-newsworthy animals."

There would have be be one ALIVE first...:)

Sorry...I just couldn't resist that one.

Long live the Chupacabra, Ruby Begonia and all other non-newsworthy animals. I like hearing about them and that makes it news to me.

You may have re-read the post, but you sure as heck did not comprehend what was written. I stated that if such a section existed, the inclusion of the chupacabra story could be justified by its placement there. Never did I say an entire section need to be produced just to run the one story. That's absolutely ludicrous.

Other posters here seem to agree with me on the newsworthiness (or lack thereof) of the incident. Did you not read THEIR posts either?

Also, running it once in a factual, non-sensationalistic piece is one thing. Beating a dead horse with its re-incarnation is another thing altogether and is particularly targeted by my comments.

As to the "every other news outlet" you mention, that's an apples to oranges comparison. They do what they do to boost ratings, and whether the attempt is senseless or sensational does not matter the least bit (to their way of thinking). The Advocate has no competition in this arena and thus does not need to get caught up in this type of media hype and hoopla.

Bobby, I did read your post. It says, “If there's a humor or Off the Wall-type section, then I could see how its inclusion could be justified.” So an entire section would have to be produced for you to justify this one story on the lighter side of life.

You also claim to know that the majority (majority of what I don’t know) agree with your assessment about “news” According to Webster’s “news” means “information about recent events or happenings” so I don’t get how this does not qualify. As for the “majority” I guess every other news outlet from CNN to FOX New and the NY Times that ran news stories about chupacabra’s needs to talk to this majority and find out what “news” is because they have not been enlightened.

Again, don’t hate, life is too short. Smile a little more and you might enjoy what is around you.

Re-read my post. That is not what I said.

Simply put -- and you'll find that the majority will agree with me -- the chupacabra ordeal simply wasn't "news" and therefore was not newsworthy.

There was nothing discovered other than an animal that had been run over. The "chupacabra" was simply a figment of someone's rabid imagination. A coyote is a coyote is a coyote -- whether it has mange or not.

But if you are interested, I hear there's a strange, flattened creature on Red River. It has claws and sharp teeth and doesn't seem to resemble a normal pet. It even appears to be wearing a mask! Mabe you could submit a photo and get some DNA testing done on it. It's likely to be a chupacabra variant of some sort...

So BobbyTomek in order to run one such story they need to publish a whole section? That seems odd. Isn't one part of "news" what people think is interesting. Just because you don't like it does not mean that others don't. Don't be a hater, be a lover.

ssullivan wrote: "The whole chupacabra deal is hilarious. Keep up the good work of reporting on the lighter side of area news."

The point is that the chupacabra ordeal doesn't qualify as news. If there's a humor or Off the Wall-type section, then I could see how its inclusion could be justified.

Otherwise, the entire debacle comes off as a news-starved staff desperately drumming up something -- anything -- to fill a few column inches.

Come on people, you all are way to serious. The whole chupacabra deal is hilarious. Keep up the good work of reporting on the lighter side of area news.

Um....Mr. Long....coyotes eat goats so therefore the goats are still not safe.......

And you're surprised at the VicAd's take from self proclaimed "experts"? And claiming "this time" is laughable at best.

I'm all for Victoria beating Cuero to the punch by using the Chupacabra as a mascot for one of the new High Schools.

The Advocate wrote: "Local chupacabra expert Phylis Canion, whose find of an unusual creature two summers ago created an international buzz..."

I must add one more thing: There was NOTHING unusual about the animal -- not even the mange. Anyone with even the least bit of animal expertise or in-the-field experience could have easily indentified what was found. Any many DID speak up, yet the doubters pressed on -- even AFTER laboratoty testing positively identified the animal as a coyote.

The "story" only lived on because of unnecessary local media attention and the constant self-promotion by Canion.

It wasn't newsworthy then (unless handled differently and appearing in a legitimate ag or outdoors section, which you won't find in the Advocate) and certainly hasn't risen in stature today.

At best, it's tabloid material, where sensationalism is the accepted norm.

I should have mentioned this earlier: Incidents of mange among coyotes have been on the rise for several years now. If you see one, shoot it and put it out of its misery.

If you understand anything about mange and what it does to an animal, you'll realize that shooting the coyote is indeed an act of mercy.

"local chupacabra expert" Puhlez.

I tell you the chupacabra belongs to the crying lady who comes out at night looking for her kids during Halloween. ooo ooo OOOOOOO ooooooo

Once again the Golden Crescent shows it's ignorance to the world. It just never goes away.

Try one of these stories: Boogey man lives in Riverside Park, or Giant pteradactyl like bird attacks family, or the more popular UFO's kidnap local family.

Jerry Springer should have come here for his shows guests.

The Advocate wrote: "This time it wasn't a chupacabra."

When WAS there a chupacabra?

DNA testing proved conclusively that Canion's "find" was exactly what I and many others had stated: that the animal was indeed a COYOTE.