What did the Utah Ranch hair tests find?
The laboratory letter on PDF page 37 describes four submitted hair samples. One matched a raccoon reference sequence, identified as Procyon lotor. Three others shared the same canine hypervariable I, or HVI, sequence. The letter says this sequence is frequently found in domestic dogs.
The report therefore does not present these hairs as evidence of an unknown creature. The results are more specific than a vague claim that the DNA was unexplained: the laboratory assigned ordinary animal sequences to the samples it tested.
Original report · PDF p. 37 ↗Scroll sideways to read all table columns.
| Samples | Laboratory result | Reading the result |
|---|---|---|
| SU-01 | Raccoon reference match | The accompanying BAASS email identifies the rock hair as raccoon. |
| SU-02, SU-03, SU-04 | Same canine HVI sequence | Includes a dog control and unknown fence hairs, according to the accompanying interpretation. |
Why was there a control sample from a dog?
PDF page 38 contains BAASS correspondence connecting the sample codes to their collection context. It describes hair from a red-stained rock, control hairs from a dog on the property, and short white and longer dark hairs collected from a fence near a reported sighting location. The control dog had hairs similar in appearance to the fence hairs.
A control provides a comparison with a known source. In this case, the fence samples and control shared the tested canine sequence. BAASS interpreted the unknown hairs as strongly likely to have come from the same dog, while acknowledging that the result was not an absolute individual identification.
Original report · PDF p. 38 ↗Does matching DNA mean the same individual animal?
Not automatically. The letter describes a particular mitochondrial sequence, rather than a unique genetic profile for every individual dog. It estimates that the sequence would occur in 9.8% to 13.8% of random dogs at the stated 95% confidence interval. Multiple dogs can therefore share it.
That distinction explains why the laboratory result and the investigator's interpretation should be read together. A common canine sequence supports a canine source; the collection location, appearance, and control comparison inform the narrower suggestion that one particular dog left the hairs. The sequence alone does not settle that narrower question.
What do these results say about the creature accounts?
They establish reported results for the submitted samples. They do not authenticate the upright dog-like creatures described elsewhere in the file. They also do not identify the cause of every separate sighting, light, or recollection in the interviews. A sample result has a limited scope: the material tested and the comparison performed.
For the fullest account, read the laboratory letter and the BAASS email consecutively. This guide uses PDF viewer page numbers; the printed page labels differ. Redacted names and sample identifiers also limit independent reconstruction of the collection history.
Compare the reported creature descriptions and labeled artist renditions, or use the complete Utah Ranch report reading guide to explore the rest of the file.