Jim to be perfectly honest, there were enough facts out there to check on that there wasn' t any need to. One thing still puzzles me. It seems as though all the details regarding this cougar have been backed up by statements made by you on another forum with one exception. That is the hunter' s name. You see the problem I' m having with this is that if all the other facts seem to be supported by your statement, why now has only the fact of the hunter' s name wrong. The name was icluded initially but could not be corroborated. Now all of a sudden all of the facts are correct but the hunters name isn' t. Sort of a protect the privacy sort of a deal. I find it odd how the only fact that can be proven or disproven independently turns out to be a mistake. It' s being suggested the cougar was harvested without a license and not reported. I' m interested in hearing your response to this. Oh yes and for the record if you asked Mitch if the photo was real what would his response be?