Need Help In Central Texas.........

[Guest]

Hilarious!!!!  I truly understand that scenario.....we have what would be considered a small "snack" for Wolfie...(Chihuahua-Corgi mix....maybe 6 pounds worth),

that thinks she's "Queen Bee".....who reminds me immediately (by doin' her barking/yodel thing),...that I must greet her and treat her with a mini-dog biscuit....

within 5 seconds of walking into the house.....after returning home.

 

Concerning the tracks....yep,...I kinda figured that conditions wouldn't be the best under the circumstances.....you've shown us such fascinating photos,...and the thought occurred to me that it would be great to be able study a series of prints....to get an idea of how big the "printer" might be, etc.....hence the question!   Thanks again! 

[Bigtex]

Thanks HWM.......let me go through my pictures, and find some track-ways to post.

[Bigtex]

We had a very light rain yesterday morning, and just enough to dampen the ground under the trees. It's a neat affect, as areas with existing prints & disturbances really stick out due to the much darker color of the damp soil from when it's dry. I have always liked hiking after a light rain because it makes older sign really pop, but remember it will always distort the impressions to some degree.     

 

Here is a partial track-way, all along the same high-clearance BF Trail, and a closeup of two of the better prints.......notice how it really sticks out with the damp darker soil. The track-way had little sign in some areas, and the sign was sporadic along the same trail. Four pics of the track-way as it continues along. You will also notice secondary disturbances within the track-way, and is the sign a hogs nose makes when they're doing the walk 'n root deal. My guess is that the Bigfoot was tracking the hog.   

Edited September 5, 2014 by Bigtex

[Guest]

I see what you mean about the prints being easier to spot. Can't help but wonder just how long that high-clearance trail has existed / has been used, imagining the possibility of more than one (through the years) having been through there periodically, maybe regularly. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to become invisible?

 

   You've commented before about the relative size of what frequents your areas,...(compared to what exists in the NW N. America)...looking at that one print (with only the end of your foot in the pic)..what I think I see, appears to be maybe 1-1/2 to 2 times wider than your foot - hard to tell - but considering the "high-clearance" you've discussed previously,...and the size of that print.....I'm inclined to think that it may be larger   than what I initially imagined...(thinking it was a "regular"- smaller version and not the type that possibly migrates) hope that makes sense. Fascinating!

 

It's hard to gauge how deep the print is...but I have to think that the "top soil" might usually be not very deep,...with a lot of rock just beneath the surface...which would prevent a true indication of its "weight". 

 

  I've seen my share of hog sign through the years and believe I am familiar with the walk 'n root where they investigate here and there along the way....especially in softer areas. I've seen that kind of sign nearly every time I explore a nearby creek bed and adjoining woods...not anything like the devastation they can do when they find a prime spot         Thanks for showing the trackways,....much appreciated, BT!

[Guest Divergent1]

I will NEVER let a dog lick me again. Humans like stinky stuff too, most perfumes or colognes were made from animal secretions in the old days, like whale oil or secretions from the anal glands of a civet cat, before synthetic oils took their place.

 

Bigtex ,do you think the difference in print sizes are possibly the same species but with sexual dismorphism present? I just wondered since SSWSP mentioned that Meldrum thought there was a difference in the foot print size between males and females. Maybe the males wander aroud but the females stay put?

[Bigtex]

Hey guys, it's just my opinion that there are races of these creatures, and like different human races, they vary in size & proportions. It seems a 'Smallerfoot' race is here year round, with the larger ones migrating through at predictable intervals, and start to show up late Summer/early Fall. They start leaving as the Spring progresses into Summer. It might be younger 'Bigfoots' that are leaving the smaller prints, but the morphology of the foot seems different, with more of an arch and narrower heal, as opposed to the flat no arch-big healed bigger prints. Even with known animals, they seem to get bigger as their range stretches further North, and might be the same for these creatures.

 

Good point Divergent1 about the migratory patterns of males vs. females, plus the foot differences, and might explain all of this too.           

[SWWASAS]

When I showed this print to Meldrum and commented on how narrow it was he suggested that as males develop into adult hood and get their mass and weight their feet get broader to support the weight.     He suggesting because of the size of 14.5 inches long and the narrowness this was likely a adult female.    The small print above and left is 8 inches and dwarfed by this one.   The narrowness threw me and I did not cast either one.     This could have been a female BF with juvenile.   Although the mud is cracked there could be details the picture does not show.  

[Bigtex]

Excellent print find SWW, and thanks for posting! Meldrum knows his stuff, and might very well be the case. The prints around here get me scratching my head sometimes - size/width/heal/male/female/young/baby, with the one common theme being the remoteness of the locations found. Lotta sticky & jagged stuff on the ground, bugs, cactus, snakes, so it's unlikely humans are making any of the prints I find, plus some are just huge. The depth of the prints from recent finds has been impressive, due to the hardness of the ground.......but must also consider there is a pretty good build up of leaf litter that the rains would have normally washed away during normal weather conditions to consider, giving the impression that a heavier creature made them.

 

For those of you not familiar with the Texas Hill Country, there are lots of 'Cedar' aka Juniper trees everywhere, and they have very low prickly limbs, the woods can be tough getting through sometimes. That's why I pay attention to the game trails with higher clearances, usually well above my head, plus I can zip through them at a very fast pace, and always the path of least resistance. There are also many limb breaks out of my reach all along the way, most very old, that have a distinct 'pull-down, twist 'n crush' appearance, with the broken limb piece still hanging.......which I interpreted as trail markers. Breaks usually don'y impress me, but there is skill, strength & purpose to these breaks. Have posted about these before......but always worth a re-run:) 

Edited September 9, 2014 by Bigtex

[SWWASAS]

One of these days I am going to rig up a soil density gauge so I can estimate weight.   That might help you sort out footprints in your area by weight of the maker.      It would just be a spring loaded plunger that I have calibrated using my weight,   that gives me a number reading when I press it into the soil next to a footprint find and push it down to the depth of the footprint find.     Do that all around the found print, and take an average reading.     Then from the footprint photograph, calculate the area of the found footprint,  and you could calculate an approximate weight for what made the footprint.     Some of my footprint finds I  put all my weight on one foot and not even make a depression next to a BF footprint.     So I know that the maker was significantly heavier but have nothing to quantify that amount.    There might even be a commercially available soil density tester for all I know.      Skeptics do not address the fact that sometimes you find footprints but you cannot even make a human footprint in the same location with your own foot.    If you had on stompers, then your footprint area would increase, and hoaxed prints would not even be as deep as your own footprints in the same soil. 

Edited September 9, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Bigtex]

That is just plain brilliant SWW......and would make the pictures & casts even more compelling if you could calculate weight. Account for wet, moist, and dry surfaces too. One thing that I have noticed about a BF trekking along......they are not walking like we do. A BF's steps are balanced, knees bent, spring loaded, arms swinging, with them coming down harder in the print, and springing out of the same print, making a deeper impression. There is more motion to their steps coming in and out of the print made, and this can cause a bit of distortion sometimes. Personally, I know that if I 'city-walk' in the woods, the chances of slipping & falling are very high, as we tend to lock our knees, and over step our center of gravity.    

Edited September 9, 2014 by Bigtex

[SWWASAS]

Maybe I will get around to the density meter this winter.    It would just approximate the weight due to variations in soil density due to rocks etc but some data is better than a total guess.    Here is a picture of my latest field research tool I just built up from a kit.      To give you an idea of the size these tires are 22 inches in diameter and 8 inches wide ATV tires.    Supposedly goes pretty well in snow too.    Will let me get way back into some remote areas I cannot drive my truck to.   Appropriately it is called a Bad Dog

Edited September 9, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Bigtex]

That is fantasic! Where can you buy the kit.....I want one?

[WSA]

Randy....I like your idea about a density meter. Thing is though, you have to account for soil moisture/lack of when the track was made. This has always been a puzzle to me. While I can look at at a track that was obviously made in a soft mud medium of water and soil, what conclusions can I make when that soil dries out and attains a density close to cured concrete?   Of course, if you observe the track being made, or have reason to believe it is fresh, that becomes a non-issue. The majority of tracks observed (I believe) lack any objective way to account for addition/subtraction of moisture (aside from, maybe "it rained day before yesterday", or something like that) So, I can try to stomp my boot into the dried mud, with not likely result, but if I came back after a rainstorm I would probably sink in above my ankles, and what, if anything, would I have determined?

[SWWASAS]

WSA The above footprint made in the mud was less than 12 hours old.    I know because the camp host said it had poured down rain the night before I found it.    So you are right and have to make some assumptions about the moisture in the soil and how long ago the print was formed.      If the soil has been dry for some time then you can sort of tell how long it has been there by how much debris has fallen into the footprint.    Over time the sides of the print collapse into the footprint.   If a print is really fresh you can watch the stuff fall into it.     I found one within minutes of when it was made one time.     I think I nearly saw the BF cross the trail.   When I was examining the footprint I felt like I was being watched.    But some idea of what weight it would take to form a print when you find it, is better than a total guess.    At least the density meter thing would provide some information.   You are correct in that It would probably be more accurate in dry conditions where soil moisture is not as big a variable.     

[Bigtex]

Here's a footprint I have posted before, and is probably the freshest I have ever run across, just minutes old when the photo was taken. I am pretty sure the dogs were chasing it, and the print was found on a sand-bar in the creek that runs under a local bridge, and previously called 'The Funnel'. Unfortunately, my Rat Terrier left her print during the pursuit, and is marked in red. Even though a smaller print, it was impressive. It had good depth, but probably because the previous print was so far away, and landed hard, then springing away. I couldn't even find the next print, and if human.....there would have been one. I did find a disturbance on the bank, but a good 15' away....this fellow was really moving! I tried to follow the sign, but lost track of it pretty quick, as did the dogs. When I came back through, the print was already filling with water from the surrounding creek, and a further testimony to the freshness of the print.