Not much to see there, it is in fact very typical of sasquatch advocates and cryptozoology in general. Selective citation of "expert" opinion, retrofitting observations to support to a preconceived conclusion (despite the authors admonishment of bias early in the piece), and ultimately avoiding obvious questions (such as why no body has shown up when people have supposedly been seeing these things since the mid 1800's).
"While purported evidence for the supposed reality of sasquatch continues to attract strong criticism, more interesting in my view is that a number of academically qualified primatologists have recently gone on record in stating that the evidence for sasquatch is scientifically compelling."
Sorry, but some variation of this "many experts in field X find the evidence for Y compelling" argument appears on every woo website, from UFO mavens to ghost hunters to 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I can find an obscure PhD in some technical field that thinks that John Edward can talk to the dead, such a thing isn't impressive and certainly doesn't constitute evidence for the claim.