In order to have any chance of evaluating this case, you have to look at each piece of evidence separately, as well as together. We have:
1) Someone who heard something with a bipedal footstep pattern run across the roof.
2) A print found nearby that looks kind of cougar-like or very large canine-like, but with a thumb, impressed in mulch.
3) A pile of crap found nearby that might have come from the print-maker, the roof-runner, both (assuming both are the same being), or neither.
4) Hair (in a large hunk) found near the ear-witness sighting.
5) A history of werewolf sightings in the general region.
6) A history of
eastern cougar sightings in the general region.
#1 is interesting but hard to prove since the sound was not recorded. We have to rely on the skill and truthfulness of the person who heard the footsteps. Most of us have heard bipedal (human) running sounds and animal (four-footed) running sounds often enough that it is reasonable to expect an untrained person to be able to distinguish between the two. Also, when I've been inside a house while people or animals were on the roof, it often sounded unusually loud, and loudness should help the interpretation be more accurate. However, in order to really be sure, we'd want to experiment with actual people and animals running across that roof, with the original ear-witness in the exact same location, along with other ear-witnesses and some recording equipment. Even then, we'd still want information about how truthful this witness is reputed to be.
#2 is a pretty bad piece of evidence, because the print was made in a medium that doesn't take much detail (mulch), because some prints were destroyed, and because there was a wait before measurements and photos were taken. However, the size should rule out all but the hugest dogs. The "thumb" narrows it down even more. If this print was made by an animal, it wasn't a normal animal. Even it is was a cougar, it would need to have at least one deformed paw.
#3 is even worse evidence, since any tie to the alleged event is not clear. It would only be useful if testing (especially DNA testing) showed something truly weird. Since it does not resemble cougar turds, it is unlikely that it was left by a cougar.
#4 is interesting, but suspicious. From the photo, it looks like entirely too large of a hair chunk to be left at a scene totally by accident. Also, it looks too consolidated for a mass of hair that large with no skin attached to it. To me, it looks almost like something that was shaved off, not something that would naturally fall from a creature (you know, the way that sheared wool from a sheep kind of hangs together for a bit, even though no skin holds it like that). That it tested as canine is interesting, but doesn't really prove anything, except that it isn't from a cougar. So, if the visitor was a cougar, it wasn't the source of the hair, unless it is a cougar that is weird beyond all reason.
#5 is interesting, but it is hard to conclusively draw links between this case and other werewolf sightings.
#6 is of almost no use at all, because cougars are sighted nearly everywhere in the regions of North America where they are supposed to be extinct.
In order to interpret this as a werewolf, we would need to show that the roof-runner and print-maker are the same creature, that the hair came from that creature, and that evidence pieces #1 #2 and #4 are not hoaxed, planted, misinterpreted or fraudulent. And even then, there would be a long road to go to real proof.
In order to interpret this as a cougar, we would need to ignore or disregard all evidence pieces except #2 and #6, and we would need to find ways to deal with the thumb problem in #2.
In order to interpret this as a prankster, we would only need to show that:
1) some person ran across the roof
2) some person (possibly the same person) left hair shaved from a canine on the scene
3) some person made fake prints in mulch, a medium where faking it would be especially easy.
My verdict: even if you do believe in werewolves, there is not enough information to stick to one hypothesis more than the others. If more information had been collected in a more professional fashion, sooner, then the picture might have been clearer. Bits of physical evidence are nice, especially since they are rarely collected from the sites of werewolf legends, but the lack of any eyewitness report makes it hard to link the various bits of physical evidence together into any meaningful framework. This is the sort of case that works better as entertainment or a spooky tale than as proof of anything.
Especially because the texture of the fur looks very... hybrid. Its not a wolf nor a human hair texture. 
Normally, I can tell really easy if a fur belongs to a animal, or not (because of the texture), but with these pictures... I couldn't.
Could be maybe.
