Again, there is a big difference between being unknown to Western science and unknown to local people. Gorillas were perfectly well known to the people who lived in their vicinity; they were only a surprise to people who lived many thousands of miles away. As soon as European explorers penetrated the areas where gorillas lived the locals were able to show them to them. Bigfoot on the other hand was completely unknown as a living animal to native Americans; at best it was a mythical, supernatural beast, and even that is somewhat questionable.
Ohio Bigfoot Convention
I remember it being free, but it was also at a local elementary school gymacafatorium the year I went. I looked for one near me, but we don’t seem to have Bigfoot Conventions up here.
I looked into the recent sighting in Washington Co. Wisconsin that someone mentioned upthread and the witness never really said he saw it, he saw something black in the back of his truck pulling out the deer carcass he had just loaded (he was contracted to remove roadkill) but said it could have been a bear or a wolf or a large dog or a bigfoot and the local media assigned Bigfoot and ran with it. It was dark and the animal was dark and the only illumination was the pickup truck bed light.
I’ll ask again. What will one dead specimen tell you about the habitat of a previously unknown species?
What does “additional protection” mean? Is there some protection in plkace now?
Why “approximately zero”? Isn’t the current level exactly zero?
So what if something goes from zero to non-zero? That isn’t saying anything at all. .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 is non-zero.
Yeah, but it’s approximately zero. 
Just being a bit of a Devil’s Advocate here, but “known to local people” might have to be tempered by just how it is known. Do the local people trap, tame, raise or otherwise interact with these animals in such a way as to make it PDS (Pretty Damn Sure) they exist? Or is it an oft-repeated legend “known to local people”?
Some “investigators” find it hard to make the distinction. To them, local legend carries all the weight of flesh & bones. And, indeed in years past with transportation more difficult than now, a legend might be all that is first available. What we need to consider for any crypto-creature is: “Is the evidence getting stronger over time?”
In the case of Bigfoot, it is not. The quantity may be increasing, the quality is not.
In every case that I am aware of where a large animal previously unknown to science came to light (e.g. gorilla, Okapi, Chaco peccary, saola) local people were perfectly well aware of these animals, hunted them, and had bones and/or skins in their possession. Their general response to inquiries by scientists has been, “Oh, yeah, those things! You want one, we’ll get one for you.” None of these animals was regarded as “legendary” or “mythical,” but simply ordinary animals that were part of the local wildlife. If Bigfoot exists, it would be absolutely unprecented for such a large animal for local people not to have been in possession of physical remains, nor to know pretty accurately where they could be found.
Exactly my point, Colibri. We are agreeing, yes? 
Stranger, this post of your reminds me of the writings of David Quammen. That’s pretty high praise.
Colibri. All true. Take a look at that list of Cryptids I posted earlier. Some few on this list:
have natives speak of them as if they are real. That’s the only reason why I class the Bigfoot as 100% hoax, and the yeti as just “very doubtful”- some of the natives seem to think the Yeti is real. However, there are also stories in the nature of legends. Inconclusive.
Of that list- Nandi bear seems legendary, along with the Mokele-mbembe, Kongamato, the Thunderbird and the Bunyip. But the waitoreke wasn’t considered a legend by the natives, just another critter. I thus conclude there is *something * to the waitoreke, although perhaps it is an animal that went extinct fairly recently.
Hehehe. This whole sentence makes me laugh, for some reason. Maybe because it reads like something a Bigfoot-spotter would say.
Bigfeets. Hehehehe.
Yes. I was mostly just elaborating a bit. (Though I wasn’t completely clear on how you meant “Devil’s Advocate” - that seemed to imply you were taking an opposite position to mine, in contrast to what you said in the second paragraph.)
You could possibly examine gut contents, where it was shot would tell you something, possibly fibers and vegetable matter on it’s fur. You could probably tell quite a bit about a dead specimen if you were a trained scientist. It would certainly tell SOMETHING which is alot more than they would know if I simply gibbered another absolutely worthless account of a sighting to the authorities. I say additional protection because if such a large animal did exist, in conjuction with some other sightings I’ve read about, it’s likely their habitat already extends into existing national parks and forests. If people had proof positive it might be the spur needed to add additional protected lands as possible corridors ect. Approximately zero is a term that means, basically, close enough to zero as to make no difference… your example of .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 is a very good example of approximate zero. A non zero number is statistically significant. Any other questions about my offhand comment about shooting a nonexistant creature for it’s supposed scientific value? :dubious:
The question is whether it would tell you enough about the species’ habitat to get Congress to set aside land. It appears from your reply that you are just guessing. How long does food stay in the gut? 24 hours?
Just noting where he was seen would tell you as much about his habitat as examining stomach contents. Was he on the edge of his habitat? In the middle of it?
It seems that you believe that your only two choices are killing it, or gibbering to the authorities. Perhaps tracking it might be a third option? Trapping?
Sure, if you killed it you would know more than if you simply gibbered. But why kill a fellow creature that, for all you know, is a highly intelligent primate, with a social structure akin to our own? Why kill any animal that is not threatening you, unless you plan to eat it?
Because, given the fact that I’m not an expert tracker or trapper and posess no high tech surveillance equipment I would say there IS no third option for me. Of course I’m just guessing about the evidence you might find on a dead specimen, we’re talking about friggin BIGFOOT here… but honestly, even if it’s just 24 hours in the gut… I’ll bet the big guy eats every day and that WILL tell us something which is better than nothing. I’m also assuming the entirety of our knowledge about this creature would not begin and end with my one specimen, I’d really be shocked if having a dead Bigfoot on the slab didn’t spur serious scientific expeditions that would gather alot more information. Why kill a fellow creature? I’ve answered that, and as for the highly intelligent primate part… that would be YOU guessing now. We don’t know anything factual at ALL, again, this is BIGFOOT we’re talking about. If it makes you happy I’ll agree to dine on a Bigfoot fillet before turning over the rest of the body to science… ethical problems solved. 
There are knowns. There are unknowns we know about. There are unknowns.There are unknowns we don’t know about. There are unknowns we think we might know about.
They are easy to find. They are in the area North,south,east and west of Seattle.
I will miss Rummy.
Don’t you have to establish that a creature exists before you can define its habitat?
I would think so, yes.
Actually, what I said was a statement of fact, not a guess. I said “as far as you know.” Do you know otherwise?