BobbyO Posted November 6, 2012 SSR Team Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 Yep, that's my way of thinking too Derek.. Enjoy your fall, i'm looking to get out to WA in the Spring/Summer so would hopefully get the chance to buy you a Beer or a Burger.. BobbyO, have you heard of Tom Brown Jr's Tracker School (http://trackerschool.com)? I haven't Sal but i'll have a look at it after work, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 If you find tracks it's either because they wanted you to find them or you are being hoaxed and when you track those tracks and that is when you can read the signs. This might be true.. some of the times, and in some cases.. but I can't except only these reasons, all of the time, in every case. I think that they can make mistakes and mis-step in tougher walking forest conditions, and softer ground. Maybe the juveniles are more prone to making these mistakes, or else just like to mess with who is out there in their territory (?). I think that is why we found, what we found.. and not because anything really wanted us too.. nor do I believe we were hoaxed. Just what i think, but could always be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Following a blood trail is not "tracking", tracking begins at the end of that blood trail. Yes it is.......... blood is definitely considered "sign" of passage. As are a multitude of other "signs". Anyone that tells you that "that it is impossible for anyone or anything to "hide" anything.........concerning their tracks" is, to say the least,naive. Any real "professional" tracker who is not trying to sell a book or service will tell you that in a heartbeat. And if that professional tells you he never has to get down on his hands and knees to establish the countinuity of a trackway in the mountains, he hasn't tracked much in the mountains. I disagree on your first statement, and agree with your second. Unless your tracking an alien that can levitate, any physical being leaves signs of its passage, and it's up to the skill of the tracker to recognize those signs of passage........some of which are extremely hard to see to the layman eye. Which segway's into the second point...........yes, if your on a hard trackway your going to be on your hands and knees looking for that sign. An animal that has been shot and bleeding to the extent that he could be "trailed" for 20 miles must be stopping at Red Cross stations along the way for transfusions. Incorrect. A superficial wound can bleed profusely at first and then will slowly lessen and then completely plug itself over many miles. Yeah, I think the Redbones would be to go if they would follow the scent trail of a Sasquatch. Sasquatch blood trails are pretty rare. Redbones don't need a blood trail to track........just scent from the track way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 If you had ever tried to track any man, boy or any wild animal over a mile ot two of a novaculite outcrop you would realize that the assertions that "anything leaves tracks anywhere it passes" is absolutely nonsense. Years ago the state police used it's own trackers and hired pro tracker to find a couple they wanted real bad up in woods in the limestone country in the northern part of the state. No luck. A few tracks, the couple waded the creeks for miles, hit limestone outcrops and their bare feet didn't leave anything but water outines, which dried WAY before the trackers passed the area. They "walked the rocks" for months. Our G &F Dept recently hired a high-dollar cougar tracking expert to check to see if we actually had cougar in the Ouachitas, Ozark and/or the Boston Mountains. He never found cougar tracks or sign, although dozens of hunters had caught the cats on game cams. I and others have seen their "scratch posts", scat and have tracked them even in snow for over 60 years. Try tracking a pack of coyotes or a bobcat down a rural blacktop road or down a railroad bed, you'll understand the limitations of tracking. Easy in the desert, snow or mud, not so much elsewhere. Following a blood trail is just that; the tracks can be disregarded.l. I've tracked down many injuried deer, mostly for other hunters who asked me to do it. In 60+ plus years of tracking, I have never seen or heard of any animal that was "bleeding profusely" for a while go more than a mile and a half before it was found dead or too weak to go any futher. I AM NOT a professional tracker, although I have tracked lost kids and adults, and 'bad boys" during the time I spent in law enforcement. Again, not everything leaves visable "tracks", and no experienced tracker would disagree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 If you had ever tried to track any man, boy or any wild animal over a mile ot two of a novaculite outcrop you would realize that the assertions that "anything leaves tracks anywhere it passes" is absolutely nonsense. Years ago the state police used it's own trackers and hired pro tracker to find a couple they wanted real bad up in woods in the limestone country in the northern part of the state. No luck. A few tracks, the couple waded the creeks for miles, hit limestone outcrops and their bare feet didn't leave anything but water outines, which dried WAY before the trackers passed the area. They "walked the rocks" for months. Our G &F Dept recently hired a high-dollar cougar tracking expert to check to see if we actually had cougar in the Ouachitas, Ozark and/or the Boston Mountains. He never found cougar tracks or sign, although dozens of hunters had caught the cats on game cams. I and others have seen their "scratch posts", scat and have tracked them even in snow for over 60 years. Try tracking a pack of coyotes or a bobcat down a rural blacktop road or down a railroad bed, you'll understand the limitations of tracking. Easy in the desert, snow or mud, not so much elsewhere. Well, I've never seen rocks in the western Rocky mountains that were completely devoid of a substrate that doesn't hold a partial track. Moss, dirt, tree needles, etc all record the passing of a target. And the Rocky mountains are well........pretty rocky. I cannot speak for your area and your mileage my vary. A good tracker does not need to see a TRACK in order to follow a track way. And there are other sign as well, broken foliage, foliage shine, etc. Same goes for creek beds..........if you walk in them, they WILL leave sign of your passage, moss scuffs, silt disturbance, rolled rocks, etc...... I'm not attempting to say that all trackers have the ability to decipher every track way, but there are a few I have in mind that I would pit against your area and a target with confidence. Following a blood trail is just that; the tracks can be disregarded.l. I've tracked down many injuried deer, mostly for other hunters who asked me to do it. In 60+ plus years of tracking, I have never seen or heard of any animal that was "bleeding profusely" for a while go more than a mile and a half before it was found dead or too weak to go any futher.I AM NOT a professional tracker, although I have tracked lost kids and adults, and 'bad boys" during the time I spent in law enforcement. Again, not everything leaves visable "tracks", and no experienced tracker would disagree. And I never said everything leaves visable TRACKS............but it does leave subtle hints of SIGN of it's passage. As far as a blood trail, I've tracked a bull elk in central Idaho through steep rocky Ponderosa pine and Douglas fir forest for three or four miles and have lost it. My search pattern expanding circles went probably at least a mile past the last blood found. There was very good blood where the animal was shot, but it slowly dissipated. I found some scuffs and partial tracks that gave me a azimuth on the direction of travel. We abandoned the track way at dark with the intention of returning in the morning. Unfortunately a massive winter storm moved in during the night and we received a foot of snow. We did go back but never picked up anything promising. Of course a bull elk is a much tougher animal than a white tail is. My buddy who shot the bull parked his .270 after that hunt and bought a .300 win mag. Another buddy of mine shot a bull elk that had a broad head in its chest cavity from the previous year's archery season. The broadhead was back on the rib cage and had missed the vitals. I bet that bull bled good for quite sometime, but healed well enough to live another year. It's also a good lesson to be careful when field dressing game, a broadhead could give a hunter a nasty cut many miles from no where. And I think I've addressed time frame already in past posts........time is not in the favor of the tracker. Just as nature absolutely records some SIGN of your passage.......she immediately starts working to erase it as soon as it's made as well. And thank you for your service in the Law Enforcement community! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted November 7, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 7, 2012 If you had ever tried to track any man, boy or any wild animal over a mile ot two of a novaculite outcrop you would realize that the assertions that "anything leaves tracks anywhere it passes" is absolutely nonsense. Years ago the state police used it's own trackers and hired pro tracker to find a couple they wanted real bad up in woods in the limestone country in the northern part of the state. No luck. A few tracks, the couple waded the creeks for miles, hit limestone outcrops and their bare feet didn't leave anything but water outines, which dried WAY before the trackers passed the area. They "walked the rocks" for months. Believe it or not a good tracker can tracker a barefoot human across rock. Or a mouse across a tabletop. How? You have to get down a put the trackway between you and the light source. If a smooth surface, the tracks will appear as a roughness. If slightly rough (sidewalk for example) the tracks will appear smooth. Its easy- finding the tracks in the first place is what's hard.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 BobbyO, a beer and a burger sound terrific!! Hope you can make it. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Believe it or not a good tracker can tracker a barefoot human across rock. Or a mouse across a tabletop. How? You have to get down a put the trackway between you and the light source. If a smooth surface, the tracks will appear as a roughness. If slightly rough (sidewalk for example) the tracks will appear smooth. Its easy- finding the tracks in the first place is what's hard.... Then it seems if tracking a barefooted human over rocks is that easy, it should be a snap for four of those "good trackers", working as a relay team, to stay on the trail of a BF until they walked him down to exhaustion. Worked with a lot of expert trackers, under all kind of conditions. They have some neat tricks and skills, but seeing a barefoot track on clean boulders, dense sandstone, novulite, granite and most limestones is a trick I've never seen one pull off. With moss, litchen or any of the Ascomycetes, loose grit, duff or dust on the surfaces, tracks can be seen. Given the choice you offered, I'll go with "Not" until I see it for myself. After all, extraordinary claims and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted November 10, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2012 Like I said, its not hard to see a barefoot track on a rock. Its a matter of lighting as I outlined. The first step though is to try it and see for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 BobbyO, call me crazy but I think they are 100% aware of their tracks, and avoid leaving them whenever possible. I also think they're hyper aware of their surroundings and the traces they leave. I believe if they weren't, this game would be long over. DR I agree, even if they're really fast get on a snowmobile and it's all over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Then it seems if tracking a barefooted human over rocks is that easy, it should be a snap for four of those "good trackers", working as a relay team, to stay on the trail of a BF until they walked him down to exhaustion. Worked with a lot of expert trackers, under all kind of conditions. They have some neat tricks and skills, but seeing a barefoot track on clean boulders, dense sandstone, novulite, granite and most limestones is a trick I've never seen one pull off. With moss, litchen or any of the Ascomycetes, loose grit, duff or dust on the surfaces, tracks can be seen. Given the choice you offered, I'll go with "Not" until I see it for myself. After all, extraordinary claims and all that. Reading this reminds me of Dr. Meldrum making a statement that a tracker friend of his in Montana challenged him to put him on a good track. Again........it's timetable, if you cannot track your quarry fast enough the trail will degrade. We have a much better chance of catching up with it by breeding and training dogs specialized for the task. Of course we COULD be chasing ghosts as well........... Like I said, its not hard to see a barefoot track on a rock. Its a matter of lighting as I outlined. The first step though is to try it and see for yourself. Unless the rock has been sitting in the rain for a couple of days before you reach it........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts