We haven't found certain / sure bigfoot fossils anywhere we've looked so we should not be dogmatic about where we choose to look yet. There are exactly the same number of recognized fossils from North America as there are from Africa or Asia. Zero. That might suggest they are a very very recent development, coming from forested areas with acidic soils that don't preserve fossils, or until geologically recently lived on coastal margins that are now underwater, or something of that nature.
The lack of fossils IS an issue. It's not a show-stopper but it requires consideration for anyone conducting serious research.
Regarding N/S America, it seems that the sites being touted as proof of long human history in S. America were contamination. They were not pristine locations archeologically, local geological events seem to have stirred the layers causing recent human artifacts to mix with very old carbon deposits. We counted too heavily, too optimistically, on evidence that wasn't as strong as we thought. By the same understanding, we need to be very careful about jumping on the bandwagon with the purported 130,000 year old "evidence" of human habitation in N.A. By this I do not mean scoff or dismiss, I mean really REALLY study it carefully before pronouncing any judgement about age or legitimacy. If we build our understanding on false foundations, it's only a matter of time before that understanding crumbles.
MIB