One of the things that seriously concerns me about contemporary cryptozoology is the way that certain high profile pundits sensationalise things out of all proportion. The ridiculous bloody Montauk Monster is one example. Anyone could see that it was a small carnivore bloated by decomposition, and whilst I blush to say that I thought it was a skunk when it was obviously a raccoon, it was by no stretch of the imagination a monster.
This latest case involving a dead sloth and an unbelievable story is more of the same.
If cryptozoology is ever to be taken seriously its high profile practitioners must refrain from this third form tabloid sensationalism. I have been accused in the past of bringing the subject into disrepute by behaving stupidly at conventions whilst in my cups, by calling our annual convention `The Weird Weekend` and allowing children to attend rather than just sitting back on our laurels and proclaiming our annual gathering to be "an International Symposium of Cryptozoological Science" or some nonsense like that.
However, to my mind, stooping to the levels of the tabloid press in giving ridiculous appelations to the decomposing corpses of known species does cryptozoology far more harm than me having a few drinks and making tasteless jokes, or a few small children giggling during someone's talk.