But even the highest-quality photograph or video cant 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. …The point is, you simply can’t know for sure if the mysterious, burly figure you have lined up in your sights is the real beast, or a bear or someone’s pet – or, even worse, just a person in a gorilla suit.
To the question, “Is it O.K. to shoot a bigfoot,” I desperately want the answer to be, unequivocally, Yes. Good god, yes. And a thousand times yes. I mean, why not? Think of the spectacle! Have you seen “King Kong”? Those people drove themselves crazy to get a look at him, and they were thrilled — up to a point.
In any event, the only people who benefit from the strict preservation of what might be, I am well aware, one of only a handful of rare biological specimens are the kooks who tromp out in the tall grass looking for them — and, potentially, the eccentric billionaires capable of building a cryptozoological theme park.
Some of these kooks like to argue that anyone who shot and killed a bigfoot would be arrested on the spot for poaching. But my unsophisticated interpretation of the law in New York, for instance, leads me to conclude that this sentiment is jumping the gun, so to speak. Huge swaths of the doe-eyed animal kingdom are left unprotected in New York — e.g., you can shoot as many sparrows as you want — and it seems clear that the exclusions relevant to hunting regulations apply only to species, you know, that actually exist.
How do I know there is no such thing as a bigfoot? Because not even the ironically-named reality show “Finding Bigfoot” has found one.*
But, alas, this is hubris. So, it says here, the answer is, No, please do not shoot at bigfoot.
Especially if you are in New York City.