That's not how wilderness and elusive animals work. Large animal skeletons very rarely get spotted in the wild, and seldom ever for something even a tenth as elusive as a proposed sasquatch. Look, it's ok if you don't believe bigfoot is real; it's very fair, but "We should have evidence by now!" is not a compelling argument when there are so many different angles and facets that would impede it.
>What if their only populations live sufficiently far away from humans that their bodies being in proximity to someone who would notice and ID it are ludicriously unlikely?
>What if they bury their dead?
>What if they have been found, but mistaken for another animal and ignored?
>What if they have been found, but mistaken for a human (if they resemble us sufficiently)?
>What if they have been found and the people simply were not believed?
>What if they have been found and the government doesn't want people to know they're out there (which would only require claiming it as any of the above instead of anything more drastic)?
>What if most bigfoot aficionados don't actually go traipsing around the woods looking for them, so our estimation of our search net is far wider than the actual search net? ( Which is true)
>What if there were remains and they were identified but scientific dogma refused to include it in literature, and it gets lost to time? (several stories allude to this)
Doesn't matter what combination of factors it is, you have to understand that anything could make finding bigfoot evidence incredibly hard. Hell, where I'm from, we have catamounts, but the government won't recognize them as being here, and so every map omits them from our area for hundreds of miles, til you get to florida. And that's an animal we know is REAL and HAS lived here before, minimum. But eye-witnesses, run-ins with 'em, and evidence like scat gets thrown out every day by official sources. Easy to disregard this argument.