Footprint ID Needed

[Blutack]

OK guys, whose paws are these then? They look cat-like to me (no exposed claws), but at nearly 2" by 3", they've got me wondering.

The pics were taken this week in a field in Central Scotland.

Cheers!

 

[Robbi]

looks like a closed fist to me

 

[Blutack]

No Robbi, either they're the real deal, or somebody is roaming our fields at night solely in order to wind me up!!

 

[Robbi]

must admit, they do look very interesting. is there a history of sightings locally ?

 

[Rob]

Nice prints

 

[shaggystu]

..... or somebody is roaming our fields at night solely in order to wind me up!!

don't take it so personally, it's probably not just you that they're wanting to wind up

i don't know about these prints TBH, they do look catlike to me but i don't think they're quite so big as you claim in the OP, not 2"x3"anyway, looking at the photo's and using the scale that you've added in there i'd say these tracks look to be about 1.5"x2.25"....how big do scottish wildcats gets? norwegian forest cat? one of those monsters from maine?

 

[dwardo]

Are they not just old dog prints washed out? One over the other.

 

[Bushwhacker]

I'd say that's a very old badger print.

 

[Blutack]

LOL, I never said it was a big cat, and I'm not aware of any sightings locally. What I meant was that the footprints themselves are definitely real.

I'd have thought that a dog would have left distinct claw marks in the mud, whereas none of the four prints we found had any claws showing.

After a bit of research, my current hunch is that it's a badger that bites its fingernails. Either that, or the claw prints were so far away from the main pads that we didn't associate the two together at the time?

However, I'd very much like to see what the experts on here think!

Edit: Bushwhacker, you got there whilst I was typing. What do you think about the absence of claws though?

 

[Bushwhacker]

LOL, I never said it was a big cat, and I'm not aware of any sightings locally. What I meant was that the footprints themselves are definitely real.

I'd have thought that a dog would have left distinct claw marks in the mud, whereas none of the four prints we found had any claws showing.

After a bit of research, my current hunch is that it's a badger that bites its fingernails. Either that, or the claw prints were so far away from the main pads that we didn't associate the two together at the time?

However, I'd very much like to see what the experts on here think!

Edit: Bushwhacker, you got there whilst I was typing. What do you think about the absence of claws though?

It's an old track, claw marks sometimes only show as small holes away from the toes, they could easily have been filled over.
Another thing could be that it's been having a good old dig or scrabble around and worn them down some.

 

[21st century pict]

Not %100 sure without seeing them in person but I think most likely Badger Rear Right with partial registration over Fore R, there appears to be a fifth digital pad just visible to the left. Probably a large female.
Was there any pathways, fresh holes or any other sign’s of damage in the area?...

There isn’t enough separation between the pads for a large cat and wrong shape for a domestic dog.

.Badger Cat.