This article is part of
Wilderness Way
VOLUME 13, ISSUE 3.
You may view more
articles here or order
this issue or a
subscription here.
Track ID: Bringing the Elements Together
by Jim Lowery
Every animal track stands in its context — with other tracks in its sequence, with the soil in which it is made, and with the habitat it is in. That is why I cringe when someone shows me a photo of a lone print to identify. To confirm what I think the track is, I am dying to see an image of the track before and after, and to know exactly where the track was found. I would also love to touch the soil around the track, to see how it reacts to pressure and to estimate how weathered the track might be.
An animal’s moving foot creates an endless variety of impressions, and I have been humbled enough after jumping to quick conclusions and then having to change my opinion. I bite my tongue now, evaluating all the information I can before making a call. Track ID requires that you look at the clear print, the track pattern, and the soil movement. Everything has to make sense. In this article, I will talk about using these three elements in Track ID. In future articles I will cover measuring tracks (how and why), and bringing habitat and biology into the ID process.
Photos 1 and 2 show a gray fox hind track and a black-tailed jackrabbit front track
respectively. Both tracks are the same shape and size. Clear
prints in good soil would easily be distinguished by the
details within them. For example, a clear heel pad in a fox
track would be absent in a jackrabbit track since the
jackrabbit’s foot is covered with fur. However, in
challenging soil such as coarse gravel, these details may
not be so evident, and require a look at the track pattern.
The hind track in Photo 1 appears to be superimposed
over a front track that shadows off to the left, making the
pattern a probable diagonal or alternating walk and making
this Track ID a fox. I would confirm this by finding the
tracks before and after (knowing that yes, it is possible
that a jackrabbit foot could have landed on top of a fresh
fox track!). With the track in Photo 2, I would
likewise find the typical gallop pattern of the jackrabbit.
This elementary example shows why we severely limit ourselves if we look only at single prints, and why combining pattern and clear print analysis should become a habit every time. Another case in point appears in Photo 3, a front/hind pair of red fox tracks made in wet beach sand. Given the size of the tracks, we might consider a small coyote or domestic dog as well. While the front track on the left is too round for our western coyote, and the sharp claws argue for fox rather than dog, I would not entirely rule out the domestic dog without following the trail, looking at the track pattern and perhaps finding better clear prints. (There are many unique domestic dog tracks and I will never see the end of their variety.) Photo 4 shows a typical red fox walking trail, much too regular for domestic dog.
Soil
movement should also enter into the process. Photo 5
shows a hind track of a jackrabbit, which is similar in
shape and size to a coyote track. If you have seen a lot of
both tracks, identification would be no problem from details
such as the small teardrop-shaped toes and the set-back toe
on the right (coyote tracks being more symmetrical). But
suppose you were not familiar with these details, or there
was more distortion or weathering that obscured these
details.
What I notice immediately in this track is the soil pushed up behind the front toes. Since the track was made on level ground, there are only two motions that might have caused it. The animal’s head could have dropped down toward the ground, a possibility we eliminate since the front toes are not noticeably deeper. That leaves speed, namely a slow gallop or a lope, which is associated with this particular “pressure release,” known as a “dish-fissure” to those of you who are familiar with Tom Brown’s tracking system.
I try to imagine a coyote moving up on its toes at this speed, without leaving a heel impression, but to no avail. I am thinking that the only way a coyote could run way up on its toes would be in a full gallop, and maybe not even then. Whereas, the jackrabbit with its furred foot would not leave a heel pad impression in any case.
I
consulted a photo of a coyote in full gallop (Photo 6)
and confirmed that either the heel pad shows along with the
dish pressure release in the case of the front tracks, or
the feet create a more severe pressure release altogether in
the case of the hind tracks.
This example demonstrates that in Track ID, you sometimes jump right into visualizing the moving animal and imagining how a track could have been made. The next step would be to confirm your ID by going to the pattern and, if necessary, finding other clear prints that provide more clues. Even if you are a novice tracker, you should apply this kind of visualization as often as you can. The trust in the accuracy of your visualization will grow with experience.
Coyote
vs. domestic dog is some-times one of the peskier dilemmas
in Track ID until the tracker has studied hundreds of
tracks. Photo 7 conveniently shows one of each in the
same place — coyote on the left and dog on the right. Track
size, relative toe size (the front toes of the dog being
larger than the outer toes), and blunt claw marks on dog
tracks often do the trick, but studying the track pattern is
often necessary when there is a close call.
The
walking trail of a domestic dog (Photo 8) is usually
irregular, meaning that the placement of the front and hind
tracks in each pair varies, whereas coyote trails tend to be
very regular. However, when a domestic dog trots, its tracks
become somewhat more regular and if the tracks themselves
resemble the coyotes’, you may have to look at soil
movement.
Photos 9 and 10 show
a coyote and dog trail respectively. Both are trotting
patterns and the dog’s is fairly regular in foot placement.
Nevertheless, the scuffing of the soil caused by random,
inefficient foot movement stands out in the dog trail. You
would confirm this Track ID by carefully studying the clear
prints also, as there are traits here that argue for dog and
not coyote.
Sometimes your Track ID begins with the pattern and not the clear print, but you also have to include other information.
Photo
11 shows a diagonal walk pattern with round shape; the
stride length is 8 inches. In this location, at 5,600 feet
elevation in the Southern California mountains, the only
possibilities would be a domestic cat, gray fox, or a very
small bobcat.
Because
snow tracks can quickly become distorted by wind, melting
snow, and freezing temperatures, it is often necessary to
follow the trail until you get a good single print showing
at least the shape of the hind foot and presence/absence of
claws, if not even better details. In this case, the trail
turned out to have been made by a house cat. In Photo 12,
one clear print of this same trail persisted until several
days later, when most of the tracks around it had become
seriously distorted. The juvenile bobcat was ruled out by
the small track size and midwinter date.
Though at first the process of
considering all of the elements in Track ID may seem
tedious, it provides a great gift because it brings you
halfway toward that communication with the animal, which I
believe is the essence of tracking.
