The bear hypothesis makes more sense than the bigfoot hypothesis. But the hypothesis that makes the most sense of all of them is the one that says that it's nothing at all, just people mistaking random noises and sightings of already known animals under sub-optimal conditions for being something more than what it is.
As soon as anyone can produce even one scrap of physical evidence I'll start listening, but "I saw something, I swear, I've been in the woods my whole life and I know what I'm talking about!" isn't evidence. Animals leave physical evidence behind. Hair. Droppings. Dead bodies. Small things like that. Even if it's a new species of bear instead of a primate there should be physical remains of some kind and there just isn't.