However, I do agree with her that her following point does get down to the issue of Kill/No Kill (or No Kill/No Capture, ...):
However we feel about killing a Bigfoot, we must accept this indisputable fact. Crying and moaning, or yelling and swearing, about it won’t change the reality. The kill/no-kill debate centers around the wrong question. Rather than arguing, often with great rancor, about whether it’s acceptable to kill a Bigfoot, we ought to drill down to the core of the matter. The kill/no-kill debate obscures the real issue. I suggest a different tactic. Wipe away the mud slung by folks on both sides of the debate. Take a good, hard look at the core of the issue. Then ask yourself one question.
Do you want to prove Bigfoot is real?On the other hand, her question seems obvious. Why else would someone consider killing (or capturing) a Sasquatch, unless it was to prove its existence to the world?
I don't want to prove Bigfoot exists. Since I haven't seen one I can't say with certainty it does exist. If I were to see one, I don't have to prove that experience to anyone. Believe me or don't, I don't care. And I'm not willing to sacrifice its life to satisfy the curiosity of others.