norseman Posted March 18, 2015 Admin Share Posted March 18, 2015 ^^^^^^^^^ Not at all, the pointed heel pad and two front toes way out in front and square of the other two toes tells me that's a canine. Bobcat track: http://www.bear-tracker.com/bobcattrackphotos.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 ^^^^^^^^^ Not at all, the pointed heel pad and two front toes way out in front and square of the other two toes tells me that's a canine. Bobcat track: http://www.bear-tracker.com/bobcattrackphotos.html Those two front toes are not actually way out in front by any means, it is as textbook a cougar track as one can ever expect to find randomly in the woods. The ground that track was in was pretty hard as well, which is what really impressed me. You aren't wrong however, what is really the case is that I really suck at taking accurate pictures of tracks, I will have to brain storm up some ways of improving for sure!.>.< My bad! We have had these critters running around this area before and after they declared them "extinct" from here. There are actually several of them, wouldn't surprise me if it was enough for some sort of long distance breeding population, seems like they got a real big range and never cause any trouble for anyone except the occasional farmer, but they never catch one I guess. What is remarkable is that they don't get shot up by all of these hunters who use dogs I figure. Probably the rarest big predatory mammal in these woods, much moreso than the bigfoot, and I would put money on that! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 19, 2015 Admin Share Posted March 19, 2015 Besides all of the morphology problems it would be one of the smallest cougar tracks I've seen. I hunted cougar with hounds, that's not a cougar track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) That's a wolf track. Scroll to the bottom of the page at this link. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wolf.printerfriendly Edited March 19, 2015 by Divergent1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) The tracks were distorted somewhat from slide in the substrate which elongates them to look like canine. But the deciding factor is whether there were any claw marks. Canines do not have retractable claws. If there were no claw marks in even 1 of the tracks then you need to explain why not to justify it being a canine. Edited March 19, 2015 by Gigantofootecus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 19, 2015 Admin Share Posted March 19, 2015 Don't need to, just look at the shape of the heel pad. The foot sliding forward is not going to Change a feline M into a canine ^. Do you understand what I'am saying? The "V" faces forward with a dog and backwards with a cat. Dunno why the claws don't show on the dog track...... Maybe the owner just had fido clipped? It's certainly not a deal breaker like the heel pad is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Leopard Tracks http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/24/indiana-man-shoots-kills-leopard-found-roaming-his-property/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Don't need to, just look at the shape of the heel pad. The foot sliding forward is not going to Change a feline M into a canine ^. Do you understand what I'am saying? The "V" faces forward with a dog and backwards with a cat. Dunno why the claws don't show on the dog track...... Maybe the owner just had fido clipped? It's certainly not a deal breaker like the heel pad is. What I'm sayin' is that track is too distorted to use your "V" as a reference. I live in the highest density of cougar in NA and I have seen them and all their signs. The deal breaker is the absence of claw marks. Clipped fido? Come on. If even 1 track has no claw marks then it's not a canine. They can't help it because they can't retract their claws. It physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted March 19, 2015 Author Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) The track are each easily 4in x 4in(minimum of 1/8 to 1/4 in more than that) and there were a half dozen pretty decent ones all the same size(Some were partials, but the parts of the paw showing were still the same size give or take how far they were pressed into the ground, further in the bigger the tracks actual measurements will be naturally but only by a hair), it's the size of a average cougar. This is not in the Western US, it is the Eastern US, so I would imagine one should expect the cougar around here to be more elusive and a smaller size than their "not extinct" Western buddies. This one however isn't smaller. In none of the 6 tracks(Ranging from partials to perfect tracks) was there any sign of hurriedness or slipping, it was just calmly milling around. If you see sign of sliding in the pictures it isn't there, it is a result of poor lighting/a cellphone camera being used/misinterpretation of the picture. The cat left excellent prints. The only one of the 6 tracks that had any remote sign of claw marks, any at all, was the one that was burried into the mud and the marks were only the size of the end of a pen. You cannot see them in the pics(I tried and tried to get pictures of them to no avail), that was the only marks whatsoever that the claws made. Anything else you see that you may think indicates claws just isn't there, it is the result of a note 3 camera, sun setting, and your eyes/brain tricking you. http://s29.postimg.org/xwsbx2et3/20150316_163633_Red_line.jpg http://s29.postimg.org/pfstm5a47/20150316_163648_red_line.jpg Hopefully this very poor use of redline will help clear things up, the toes were all pretty perfect balls, I am just terrible with paint. Just trust me, it's a cougar,a few of the people here know about them, most don't, I was curious to see what people would get out of the pics and learned I need a much better camera for this sort of crap. You should see the two bigfoot tracks I got >.< Horrendous quality but around 14 inches long, figure it's a female. I seriously doubt the male I have seen leaves 14~in tracks, didn't get a good gauge of his height except "Taller than me", but the shoulders were ridiculous. Hear the female from time to time, and heard her in that instance, if I hadn't heard her yelling as I was climbing the hill I would not have stopped at the top of it to look around me and would have missed him. Edited March 19, 2015 by Xion Comrade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Xion, you are right. That track is well within the size range of a cougar. If you look at the above photo of the bobcat track that ruler next to it shows about 1 3/4", much to small. The only reason I threw in leopard was as an example of another big cat track that looks the same. You keep apologizing for your picture quality, don't, tracks are very hard to get a good one of, and yours is good. Another thing about cat tracks is that they are usually slightly wider than long. This can be easily measured in your picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted March 19, 2015 Author Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) Xion, you are right. That track is well within the size range of a cougar. If you look at the above photo of the bobcat track that ruler next to it shows about 1 3/4", much to small. The only reason I threw in leopard was as an example of another big cat track that looks the same. You keep apologizing for your picture quality, don't, tracks are very hard to get a good one of, and yours is good. Another thing about cat tracks is that they are usually slightly wider than long. This can be easily measured in your picture. This cougar track experiment has been very useful, because as far as tracks go I just film them and destroy them afterwards. It is very difficult to get the Sasquatch ones on this camera I have noticed because thus far(both occasions) they are never in good material and/or are under some form of cover. Pretty sure I have gotten tracks from what I presume is the big girl both times, almost 4 inches wide at the heel(Could make out achilles tendon in the first track, strictly a heel one that looked exactly like a human heel just bigger, absolutely perfectly pressed into the mud, something much heavier than I am). The second track was a full foot, possibly made at the same event that I found a week after the heel one if I remember right(I had followed the knocking sounds they made in response to my own and was just wonder around the area, pretty sure she could have been standing there watching me and I didn't notice, this was where I found my second full foot track, could see the toes perfectly even though there were about 5 layers of old wet leaves). It's been a good time in the field this past year, I must say. I don't know what they think of me destroying tracks I find in the woods, but I figure especially when I destroy theirs that it is a interesting move to them for sure. I recommend destroying their prints after you record them tbh, it may just build some trust, but that is just my baseless opinion. I think what Norse is pointing out is that the front part of the lobe is shaped more like a canine's than a cougars, the little "m" at the top isn't present but instead the more rounded shape is and he is right, the tracks do not show the little m but I don't think it means anything here, in the deeper track the mud is just to soft to preserve that delicate shape worth anything, and in the other tracks the ground is just to hard to allow the foot to press down in a manner where it could show, I couldn't make any mark in it when I stood on one leg, but it was still abit damp. Very deceptive ground for any more intricate details I guess Edited March 19, 2015 by Xion Comrade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Well, I haven't thought about destroying found BF tracks. But, I will say this, making a cast of a track does a pretty good job of doing just that! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted March 19, 2015 Author Share Posted March 19, 2015 Well, I haven't thought about destroying found BF tracks. But, I will say this, making a cast of a track does a pretty good job of doing just that! :-) Oh yes lol! I don't cast anything because it is just to much to carry, this area I am in takes a butt-ton of walking to get around and the odds of me finding one of these boogers tracks is about as good as me getting to see it face to face! Zilch! I sincerely believe that they will make some tracks out for you just to see how you react. I have no doubt that they posses that level of intelligence whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Xion thanks for sharing some of your experiences. I do think that their woods-wise intelligence has ours beat all to hell! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 20, 2015 Admin Share Posted March 20, 2015 Here is my neighbors dog in North Dakota it's Great Dane mix. Albeit the track is older, but the clay out here turns to concrete when dry. Didn't see any evidence of claw marks but the dog runs on scoria a lot which is like crushed brick. The heel pad is still a vee towards the toes. Largest concentration of cats? Must be VI? My ranch is 30 miles south of Trail, BC. We have a lot of cats in the Selkirks too.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts