If I may comment? That hunter must have been extremely relieved when upon examining the body that it wasn't a man in a suit. Makes me wonder how he made that determination. There must have been some obvious indicator that something was different? Even if he was aiming at what he thought was a bear- but wasn't- tells me he simply didn't know, or only thought he knew, what he was shooting at. Funny how something like that could potentially have an extremely tragic backfire. It's why anyone going after there things needs to be 110% sure that what they are looking at says absolutely Sasquatch before they pull the trigger. Perhaps with only a second or two available to make that determination it may be best to hold one's fire? The risks are simply too, too great for one to be wrong.
The courts probably won't let anyone off on the "I didn't know" defense since the courts more that likely don't think the creature exists. So it should have been obvious to the hunter that it was a guy in a suit just on that basis. Because if Sasquatch doesn't exist then OF COURSE it was a guy in a suit. Yes, science would prefer one on a slab for study but getting one on that slab is an extremely complex undertaking. A lot can go wrong between seeing one and taking it down. The stakes are high and the risks even higher. There is no room for error and only one chance to get it right.