Gaugler begins by agreeing with UFO and Fortean writer Nick Redfern that we shouldn't toss out data that seem at odds with our comfort zones. All those “cross over cases” are part of the data. He also says that a paranormal explanation isn’t the answer either; that we can’t give up on the idea that Bigfoot is a flesh and blood creature. And, of course, cryptozoology is a science. No room for orbs, UFOs and telepathy there.
While ultimately I disagree with Gaugler on his views regarding "paranormal" Bigfoot, he does make good points. For example, he writes that:
the number of cases in Bigfoot appears to be nothing more than a flesh and blood species completely outweigh the ones with a more paranormal bent. All of the major Bigfoot cases that are commonly cited in the literature, such as the Albert Ostman case and the Ape Canyon siege, both from 1924, contain no traces of any paranormal elements, but instead portray the Bigfoot as behaving more like regular animals. In addition, many of the paranormal Bigfoot cases don't hold up well to scrutiny, failing to provide any empirical evidence and appearing to be more likely hoaxes or just simple coincidences or misidentifications.
In cases where Bigfoot behaves more “animal” than supernatural, this is a good point. It’s also possible what we know of Bigfoot are two or more different types of creatures. And, or, that Bigfoot shifts between two worlds; flesh and blood, "paranormal."
I do question his assertion that the paranormal cases “don’t hold up to scrutiny” -- really, what paranormal event does? And I wouldn’t go so far as to say that those cases are hoaxes, “simple coincidences or misidentifications.”
There's just too much of that weird data out there concerning Bigfoot to warrant including it in our approach.