Although the catch phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is often repeated, it is fundamentally nonsense - unless elaborately qualified.
If you thoroughly search a room looking for a suspect, and do not find him or her, you know they are not in the space searched. Absence of evidence can obviously be extremely strong evidence of absence if you have effective tools to look for the evidence.
We now have the equivalent situation with respect to "Sasquatch".
With the advent of environmental DNA (eDNA) monitoring, a technology that has been available now for nearly 20 years, it is possible to survey the animals present in an environment, without ever seeing them, by detecting the traces of DNA they inevitably leave behind. When you consider forensic DNA analysis, analyzing the traces of DNA left on most any object you interact with, the technique is almost 30 years old. No one has ever detected the DNA of an unknown non-human primate in North America.
All of the Sasquatch "evidence" - footprints, disturbed areas, supposed feeding or gathering spots, claimed coprolites, etc. would be loaded with Sasquatch DNA if it was real. Nope, no Sasquatch DNA anywhere. At this point we can close the book on the theory that there is, or has ever been, a Sasquatch.