In an effort to establish the incidence rate of reported animal mutilations
throughout the U.S. and the involvement of veterinary practitioners
in elucidating such cases, the National Institute for Discovery Science
recently conducted a survey among bovine practitioners. A total of 3,849
letters accompanied by corresponding questionnaires were sent to bovine
practitioners in 50 states. One hundred and eighty nine questionnaires,
representing 4.91% were returned. The response rate was unexpectedly
low. This suggests that little attention is paid by veterinary practitioners
to this subject overall. Their attitude could be explained by a variety
of reasons, such as:
- Ranchers are reluctant to report the death of their animals and do not ask for veterinary assistance, mainly because they do not want to spend any money for establishing the cause of death. Once the animal is lost, the owner does not want to pay for the cost of necropsy or laboratory analysis.
- Carcasses are sometimes discovered long after death so decomposition is in an advanced stage. Thus, the gross pathology changes cannot be properly interpreted and a necropsy is, consequently, not performed. Especially in summer, when the animals are on pastures, often far away from corals or the owner’s residence, the death of the animals is noticed days or even weeks later. High temperatures cause quick post-mortem alteration, which hinders proper examination and lesion interpretation.
- Most veterinarians are reluctant to get involved in such cases
because of publicity around them and the potential impact on their
reputation.
Table 1 reflects the numbers of letters sent to bovine practitioners and their
responses by states:
|
No. |
State |
Number of
Letters Sent
|
Answers
Received
|
Number of
Mutilations Reported
|
|
1.
|
AL
|
33
|
0 |
0 |
| 2. |
AK |
1 |
0 |
0 |
| 3. |
AR |
20 |
1 |
0 |
| 4. |
AZ |
23 |
6 |
18 |
| 5. |
CA |
176 |
10 |
5 |
| 6. |
CO |
86 |
1 |
0 |
| 7. |
CT |
17 |
1 |
1 |
| 8. |
DE |
3 |
0 |
0 |
| 9. |
FL |
47 |
3 |
0 |
| 10. |
GA |
43 |
2 |
0 |
| 11. |
HI |
3 |
1 |
0 |
| 12. |
IA |
207 |
16 |
4 |
| 13. |
ID |
47 |
1 |
0 |
| 14. |
IL |
132 |
8 |
1 |
| 15. |
IN |
95 |
4 |
0 |
| 16. |
KS |
141 |
11 |
10 |
| 17. |
KY |
122 |
1 |
1 |
| 18. |
LA |
16 |
0 |
0 |
| 19. |
MA |
8 |
1 |
0 |
| 20. |
MD |
30 |
2 |
0 |
| 21. |
ME |
19 |
0 |
0 |
| 22. |
MI |
118 |
1 |
0 |
| 23. |
MN |
211 |
7 |
1 |
| 24. |
MO |
128 |
7 |
2 |
| 25. |
MS |
25 |
1 |
0 |
| 26. |
MT |
105 |
3 |
2 |
| 27. |
NC |
49 |
3 |
1 |
| 28. |
ND |
30 |
2 |
0 |
| 29. |
NE |
139 |
4 |
1 |
| 30. |
NH |
11 |
0 |
0 |
| 31. |
NJ |
19 |
0 |
0 |
| 32. |
NM |
20 |
2 |
0 |
| 33. |
NV |
11 |
0 |
0 |
| 34. |
NY |
197 |
10 |
0 |
| 35. |
OH |
149 |
11 |
1 |
| 36. |
OK |
82 |
4 |
1 |
| 37. |
OR |
46 |
5 |
0 |
| 38. |
PA |
92 |
8 |
1 |
| 39. |
PR |
5 |
0 |
0 |
| 40. |
SC |
12 |
0 |
0 |
| 41. |
SD |
131 |
6 |
11 |
| 42. |
TN |
57 |
5 |
0 |
| 43. |
TX |
145 |
8 |
28 |
| 44. |
UT |
21 |
2 |
1 |
| 45. |
VA |
69 |
4 |
0 |
| 46. |
VT |
32 |
2 |
0 |
| 47. |
WA |
82 |
3 |
0 |
| 48. |
WI |
474 |
2 |
3 |
| 49. |
WV |
14 |
0 |
0 |
| 50. |
WY |
11 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
T o t a l |
3,849 |
189 |
92 |
The following map suggests the distribution of reported cases by states:
Figure 1 — Animal Mutilation Incidence in the U.S.
From the 92 reported mutilations, only in 11 cases (11.95%) necropsy was performed
and qualified interpretation of pathologic findings was done. This speaks
for little involvement of veterinarians in elucidating the causes of
the animal mutilation phenomenon.
Laboratory examinations were performed in even fewer cases: 7 (7.60%).
This may be due to similar financial considerations as mentioned above.
Official investigations were conducted in 28 cases (30.43%). This means
that even when mutilations were reported, the authorities were involved
in less than a third of them. As acknowledged by some field investigators,
in many situations the investigation itself is rather superficial, because
of lack of specific knowledge in connection with the animal mutilation
phenomenon.
According to the reported mutilation cases body parts were missing
as follows:
| Lower jaw muscles |
21 |
22.82% |
| Tongue |
39 |
42.39% |
| Eye |
54 |
58.69% |
| Ear |
13 |
14.13% |
| Teats |
45 |
48.91% |
| Udder |
48 |
52.17% |
| Vulva/vagina |
70 |
76.08% |
| Rectum |
70 |
76.08% |
| Penis/testicles |
8 |
8.69% |
| Lips |
6 |
6.52% |
| Tail |
1 |
1.08% |
| Other organs |
4 |
4.34% |
Surgical precision in cutting tissues was reported in 4 cases (4.34%). Missing
animals was reported in 5 cases (5.43%).
The following graph reflects the above presented data:
Figure 2 — Animal Mutilation Pattern
