The main points I take from this is that the woods of the Pacific Northwest are extremely difficult to move through, which enforces a good point that they make an excellent place to hide, and that there is no such thing as a ‘bigfoot expedition’ as everybody is out there with no real pre-conceived idea of just what to do, so they make it up, doing the best they can. Having a complaining camera man to drag along must have made it excruciating for Matt, and I’m sure next time he’ll leave them at home.

Not being a regular watcher of “Crypto Tonite!” I can’t make any judgments about defections/accessions to any crypto group, or the credentials of any particular crypto-feller (or dame). So I won’t. I will give my opinion, as a long time hiker backpacker paddler skier, that you won’t find wildlife by hiking around noisily. Call blasting? Well, show me it works. But these guys are called cryptids for a reason.

And then again. Anyone know what DOES work, for this animal no one knows anything, really, about? We may just have to accept that there may be some kernel worth keeping from every approach, and cross our fingers.

(Except NO KILL. Can’t change that approach. I’m so with Scott on that one. I’m in the one that says DON’T TOUCH — no capture, tranquilizing, anything of the sort — guided by the Golden Rule, of course. Would YOU like it? Is human knowledge, then, really just the satisfaction of insatiable humnan curiosity, worth doing that to a living being? Yes, a question science asks all too rarely, I know.)

Cryptozoologists, zoologists, and anthropologists should be engaged in scientific discovery. This is a labor of love. Granted it isn’t lucrative and has high out of pocket costs. But, at least those who are involved in legitimate study here aren’t exploiting an animal that hasn’t yet been officially “discovered”.

I find it difficult to believe that a group that would condone and organize a “hunt”, as the safari and big game terms suggest, the subject animal would be in the forefront of the creature’s ultimate protection and conservation.

Of course, this position will probably get us into the “kill, no kill” argument. Craig and Loren already know that I am FIRMLY in the NO KILL camp and no amount of dialog will get me off that seat.

I don’t know about your credentials or your off-piste experience, but hats off to Matt for even trying to turn more people on to the whole BF phenom - I think he is to be credited for giving BF a great deal more credibility with a wider audience than any amount of pontification from experts.

And as far as this bs about “someone’s going to get hurt” - guess what? Campers and hikers and skiers and climbers are hurt every year anyway, so, so what?! - Go enjoy some mother nature and catch bigfoot, or catch Matt making howls, or catch Alton measuring and catalogueing the angular declinsion of tree breaks, or catch BF catching Daryl and Craig catching BF! (just kidding around guys) . . it’s all good.

Lastly, this is the first I’ve heard about the BFRO defection and that is sad: sad for the defectors, sad for the BFRO, sad for Matt, and sad for the rest of the interested public. I’m sorry that what began as a nice way to defray some costs and spread the excitment has become veiwed as such a boondoggle (or series of them).

But I do agree with the quality of the supposed investigations (not just on the BFRO; there are other sites that are far worse - the BFRO seems to be above the rest.) I tried investigating for awhile and I didn’t like posting anything that I couldn’t go out and verify and corroborate onsite with the witness’s witnesses (meaning people who also saw “it” or saw the agitated state of people who did see and can verify time and place, etc.) But that would be a full time job and we all have kids and jobs that pay and . . . .Here is the critical evidence that BFRO reports are higher standard than other sites: very few reports on the BFRO start with or contain the words “I SEEN . . .”
Considered by many to be the epitome of illiterate or borderline literate discourse, this one simple gramatical fragment can be used to qualify almost any alleged witness.

OK, I’m just getting silly now - better get out while I can.

Just going out into the woods with good intentions doesn’t credential you as a cryptozoologist any more than being armchair bound with similar intent.

While I can accept variations in methodology, I can’t condone poor science nor justify an $800 price tag as a participation fee that doesn’t include transportation, food or even access fees for the parks or camping areas they visit.

I can easily get a state room, meals, transportation and port fees for a 7-day all inclusive cruise to the Archaeological ruins of the Yucatan for less money with an organized crew that conducts themselves professionally.

Moreover, the defection of the truly professional experts at BFRO makes an eloquent statement about the organization’s objectives and management — as does the conduct of two BFRO members who crashed one of my college expeditions last November.

Circumstantial, but it does seem odd.