Long time lurker, first time poster here. I'm just getting caught up on the thread. Here are some thoughts based on my own mix of experience and opinion.
These are all just my thoughts so take them for what they are worth.
1. LE-I am a huge LE supporter. My impression of this case is that this department is doing the best they can. The county population is under 8,000. It's probably safe to say the are unaccustomed to dealing with cases like this and the media attention they bring. They don't have a PIO (I'm guessing) and aren't comfortable during interviews, which is why we have heard them say odd things to the press and to the family. Examples of odd things are statements about their relationship and interactions with the family and making the mistake (IMO) of saying they are 100% sure the child isn't in the water. This is a "small town" sheriff's department and SAR that is doing the best they can. The best move that was made was looking for outside (more experienced) help.
2. Predator activity-Based on my own knowledge and opinions I don't believe this applies to this case. At some point, scavenger/predator activity could be a factor but I do not believe an animal (known or paranormal) is responsible.
3. The store visit-If it was their first day there, and if Dad (DK Sr) is correct about his timeline, I believe it makes the most sense that they stopped on their way to the campgrounds and did not backtrack(but maybe this is wrong). DK Sr said the whole family was there. Either, he was correct and the clerk got the time wrong or it was a totally unrelated "filthy, bawling child." I don't believe that an abductor would take a child away from the family and then stop at the (presumably) first store he comes to, only 8-10 miles from the site. Too risky. If an abductor was stealthy enough to get in and out of that site with a child, that would be a really unstealthy move.
4. The dogs-Dogs are fantastic and have saved many people and helped bring closure to many families, but scents that are useful for tracking have a shelf life and it's often short and easily compromised. Despite this they still try, even when they know the chances are slim. Why wouldn't they still try? Unfortunately, this then makes them look like an ineffective tool. References to cadaver dogs vs scent dogs could very well be talking about the same dogs. Cadaver dogs are often different dogs than tracking dogs, but not always. Dogs can be cross-trained. Think of police K-9's that can do bite work as well as drug scenting and/or suspect tracking.
5. The media-I wouldn't get too caught up in discrepancies between media reports. They get details wrong all of the time, large and small. Also, I don't think the unedited video interview reveals any attempt to disorientate the parents. For the most part, it looks like what I would expect from pre-edited interview footage but it's a non-typical subject (thankfully). We are just accustomed to seeing post-edit interviews when they look more slick.
6. Abduction theory-I want to be careful how I say this out of respect for forum rules and the parents. I don't believe there was a stranger abduction. I also don't believe the parents hurt their child, but someone may have.
7. The water-Like many here, I think there is still a good chance that Little DeOrr is in the water. I also think that his flatland walking skills, or lack of, may have gotten too much focus and was an exaggerated statement by a parent that doesn't want to believe he could have moved fast enough to get to any body of water. I believe the statement was akin to his, "I don't know what day today is" comment.
8. The helicopter-There had been concern about Dad's preoccupation with the helicopter and it's equipment. The reason I think he was so impressed is because it's super impressive! The helicopter was Two Bear Air. That helicopter has been able to find many people in the couple of years its been used. It is also occasionally used to survey grizzly bear dens. There is amazing video footage of a grizzly den that they checked out and the capability of the heat sensitive cameras is amazing. This isn't your typical, "fly over the scene with a helicopter and hope to get lucky spotting something," helicopter search. This bird is equipped specifically for finding and accessing people in some of the most challenging terrain in the world. I believe that if that little boy was toddling around when the helicopter was there, they would have found him. Because of the capabilities of this helicopter and its equipment and crew and all of the other information we've seen, I believe that if this boy is still there, he's either under the water or in the ground. I hate to say that but that's my opinion.
Here is the grizzly den video to show how sensitive the infrared camera is:
https://www.facebook.com/MontanaFWP.R1/videos/702381863209745/
edited for typos