There is a real opportunity to gather DNA evidence without a dead body in a laboratory. Let me explain. In the field, we come across hair and feces (eventually you will). These samples should be gathered and analyzed. I have to admit, unless you know someone at a University Lab, that is going to be a little difficult. That is why the visual is so important.
Just look at recent developments.
In the past few days Dr. Estaban Srmiento and Dr. Jeff Meldrum have been the guest on two Blogtalk radio shows hosted by Youtube bigfooters. That is extraordinary. They know that the searching we are doing may very well uncover DNA without the actual capture of the beast. With DNA we would know more about the animal. Right now, we don't know enough about their societal structure to guess their next moves. We must be doing something right to be taken so seriously by these eminent scientist that have been featured on MONSTER QUEST.
From Jeff Meldrum's "Sasquatch - Where Legend Meets Science" Chapter 15, Splitting Hairs and Molecules: DNA and Physical Evidence.
"Precise hair identification - trichinology - is a challenging process requiring
an extensive reference collection with which to compare the unknown sample.
There can be considerable individual variation in hair length, color, texture,
and stage of growth within a species, as well as variation between different
regions on the body of a single individual animal. Arriving at a conclusive
identification can be a labor-intensive process requiring exhaustive comparisons
with known standards.
In the past there have been several independent
analyses of hair attributed to sasquatch, more often than not conducted at the
request of an amateur investigator. Usually, the hairs were readily identified
as belonging to a commonly known animal such as bear, coyote, or human. However,
some hair samples were of indeterminate identity. While an indeterminate
identification of an alleged "sasquatch hair" is interpreted by some as
indication of an unknown animal, it is more conservatively regarded by others as
the lack of a comprehensive collection of hair samples from known species of
animals with which to compare the strand in question. Indeed this would be the
only reasonable outcome for hair that might in fact have come from a sasquatch.
All that could be concluded is what species the hair did not appear to belong
to. Conclusive identification depends on a match to a known sample of hair,
i.e., an established standard. Without a confirmed sample of sasquatch hair, any
hair truly originating from a sasquatch would necessarily languish in the
indeterminate category. Such a standard is unlikely to be acknowledged until
hair is pulled directly from a sasquatch body by a qualified analyst."