I also noted your pointing to, “Are you all game officers? Do you work for PGC?" Maybe that indicates something different from my interpretation but it seems to imply that if one takes a contrary view to yours, they must be game officers and therefore -- defensive.
Either way, I do not work for any agency and I am not a game officer.

I don't know how familar you are with the PGC and the way they handle reports. From my contact with them it is my opinion that if there is a credible report made in a timely manner, (when officers are available and withing a reasonable period following the sighting), they do respond.
However, it seems the reporting party is seldom satisfied with the findings.

True, this is a forum. I find it odd that you seem to notice my journalistic style or lack of it, in view of all the wild claims made by others.

I need not defend anything. I make no claims to anything that needs defended. I simply note, with some attempt at humor, (sometimes through sarcasm),the ridiculous. I ask pointed questions and I note what i've observed or researched.

In our individual writing style we differ. I preferred to "jest" to make a point. It has been pointed out to you, (I'm paraphrasing here), that you leave folks with the impression that reports are valid, when in fact they have been resolved to not be cougars. I would much prefer that you post, as vividly, those, "not-cougar,"findings.