(One of the most famous "Bigfoot" pictures around. This is from the short 1963 film, Patterson-Gimlin, which claims to show evidence of Bigfoot. However, some people believe it is just a man in a gorilla costume.)
The quick answer is, I doubt it. I know this is going to make Bigfoot experts and advocates of his existence very mad, but this is just an opinion. Like it's your opinion he does exist. "HE DOES!" That's okay. No need for a temper tantrum. I'm not here to shit all over your beliefs. Only to talk about what I think.
My mother is a fan of the Bigfoot shows. Any time there's "proof" she always has to tell me to change the channel and I tell her no. A very blunt, no, too. Don't waste my time. First of all, I don't believe anything from some reality TV show in desperate need for ratings is a valid source. That's also the main reason why I don't watch paranormal shows. I never trust anything attached to Hollywood as evidence. They need something to keep those ratings up and the higher the ratings, the more advertising money they receive.
For all we know, it could be just some wise ass dressing up, strutting past a (oddly enough) terrible camera and all of the sudden we have "evidence." People do find the fact that the cameras are always crappy kind of odd, right?
Secondly, like I tell her or anyone else that brings Bigfoot up, with all the technology we have, we've should've found evidence of Bigfoot's existence. I mean, if we can find the Titanic in the vastness of the Atlantic Ocean, then surely we can find a big, hairy, humanoid "monster." "Yeah, well, they knew where the Titanic sank, so bad example." Fair enough, I suppose. But with all the sightings of Bigfoot pinpointed in certain areas, then what's the difference? Unless, of course, he/it doesn't stick to one area for too long, then I can see your point.
I'm not saying Bigfoot outright doesn't exist. There is a difference between doubt and certainty. I doubt it, but I'm not certain of it. It's a lot like the Loch Ness Monster. Again, there's photographic "evidence", but even some of those have been proven to be faked or the photographer admitted it was fake (sources: 1, 2), but despite proof, people just won't let it go. Much like people who are obsessed with "orbs." Those have been proven, by science, to be nothing more but specks of dust or bugs. But people are determined to prove you wrong, even though in the end they're wrong, which is commendable in its own strange way, but at the end of the day, you're only looking like a fool in the end if you just can't accept it.
Bigfoot is a different bag, though. The legend has never been proven to be fake, but then again, it's never been proven to exist either.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I do doubt it. Especially with all the advances in technology, but then again, we can't be in all places at once. Maybe someone is just in the right place at the right time. It would be cool if Bigfoot did exist, but then again, it wouldn't. They'd probably catch him and turn him into an exhibit.