I find a WHOLE LOT to disagree with here. Redfern is in a particular neighborhood of cryptozoology. That side of town has gone to the dogs (more like dogmen, because that subject and paranormal themes
DOMINATE cryptozoological meetups here in the US). Redfern has deliberately ignored, unless forced to acknowledge, the more scholarly side of cryptozoology which is, in fact,
flourishing. Researchers and writers in this scene don't push out several volumes of witness stories and speculation on the monster of the day, but take years to put out original research and thoughtful commentary. They focus on the zoology and folklore aspects. I've focused on how science is invoked (typically by amateurs) like those on TV shows and in Bigfoot hunting groups, but others have actually provided excellent explanations for cryptid tales. Here are some examples:
- Abominable Science - Loxton and Prothero
- Lake Monster Mysteries - Nickell and Radford
- Searching for Sasquatch - Brian Regal
- Hunting Monsters - Darren Naish
- Tracking the Chupacabra - Ben Radford
- The Secret History of the Jersey Devil - Regal and Esposito
- Bigfoot, Yeti and The Last Neanderthal - Bryan Sykes (title may be different in the UK)
Those are just pretty recent ones. And there are even published papers by Sykes, Regal, Naish, Paxton, and others. I believe more are to come. But Redfern doesn't like these. They don't promote mystery. They are complicated. (The Jersey Devil isn't even an animal!) Well, cultural items have very complicated origins, and often not the obvious ones, either. So, my questions has been to self-styled cryptozoologists* - what is your goal? Are you looking for the best answers to explain what people say they see? Or are you trying to indulge your belief in monsters and myths and to be a "monsterologist"?
*none of the authors listed would call themselves that, I suspect.
Daniel Loxton called it the "post-cryptid" cryptozoology phase that we are in now. TV monster shows are fictionalized. The solid research to get done right now is pretty difficult.