Would it be right to shoot a Sasquatch, if one found that long-sought-after creature? Over at Live Science, they ask if shooting one might be a necessary, definitive way to determine if Big Foot exists:
But even the highest-quality photograph or video can’t be considered definitive proof of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, or any other mythical beast. Similarly, if the goal is to simply make scientists and the general public take Bigfoot seriously, then some verified remains of the creature – be they hair, teeth, blood, bones or something else – would do the trick. [Infamous ‘Yeti Finger’ Flunks DNA Test]
But definitive proof is a very high standard. Most Bigfoot enthusiasts — and the general public — would be satisfied with nothing less than the rock-solid definitive proof offered by a living or dead specimen.
One might be hoping for the recovery of a previously-dead Sasquatch, but Live Science and others must know that the best way to get remains is to blast a Big Foot into easily-collectible, still-recognizable pieces.
I’d say no: assuming there is such an animal, it’s terribly rare, and should not be hunted. Captured alive, recovered previously-dead, captured on film, or not captured at all – those would be my preferred options.
Captured alive would offer more opportunities for science than recovered dead, and it would be more profitable, too. People would pay to see a dead Sasquatch, but they’d pay big money to see a live one. If one could keep it alive, and avoid any unfortunate, King Kong-like escape scenarios, both science and the economy would benefit from a live capture.
(H/t to Hot Air for the story.)