Thanks for framing the question. I'll try to explain. It might work, it might not.
I'll tell you that in "bigfooting circles" the debate between pro-kill and no-kill rages on, it's not just here. A lot behind the well thought out discussion comes down to whether bigfoot are intelligent, reasoning "beings" or are "dumb apes." Not too many people today want to publicly advocate murdering people, no matter how primitive, in the name of science.
I see it like this .. their behavior says "people", not "dumb animal." Dumb animals don't have curiosity or humor, they don't show respect or restraint. I've seen all of those. To me it says they are some kind of people, regardless of the biological differences. More "human" than some of our monsters like Charles Manson or Ted Bundy.
So far as taking a life. Here's the thought process, you don't have to accept it.
Most here I think will accept this much: (a) if someone attacks me, I'll kill to preserve my own life, and (b) if someone attacks my kid, I'll kill to preserve her life.
The law, here, allows me to intervene for a third party even if I don't know them. Y' gotta decide whether the costs are worth it, but for me, if its clear who is the aggressor, I'll probably get involved. Lets say for instance someone walks into McDonalds and opens fire on the crowd. If I can, I'll kill the SOB to try to save other people even if I could have just slipped out the back door.
So far so good? Then lets put it together:
Since I see bigfoot as a kind of people, I see killing one, unprovoked, other than in self defense, as MURDER.
I will act to stop a murder up to, and including, taking the murderer's life myself.
I'm not trying to convert anyone. Just stating where I stand, and why.
Tom
