It's been a long time since I walked down this path, but I'm glad the mystery has been finally solved............................................................................................................................or has it?
TRACKS: Who dunnit?
- Thread starter JonathanD
- Start date
Unfortunately there aren't any. Anything that looks like a clawmark is down to my photography creating shadow in a depression in roughly the right area caused by something else. I examined the prints from every angle and there was definately no claw marks otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Seriously, they aren't claw prints. I had no desire to see claws or not see them as I'm impartial and examined them from a scientific POV, which I apply to all wildlife as well as my own field, but there just are not any in those tracks and I examined over fifty individual prints.
Last edited:
Quite. Here are the original pics. There are some indents on there, but they aren't claw marks, I examined them for hours on end, back and forth ad infinitum. the mud was very squishy and deep here, so claw marks should have been picked up. I should have had Pops with me.
Not a technical whiz so will have to describe rather than post the pics with descriptions.
Go around each toe methodically and look for the marks. Bear in mind that claw marks dont have to be sharp and clear but can be blunt, faint and hard to spot.
Look at the pic showing the two prints, take the right print and look approx 1cm in front of the two middle digits, and possibly the right digit as well.
The left print also shows signs on digit 2 & 4 (starting form the left).
Bear in mind that items like the stick / vegetation will possibly have prevented any marks from being made.
Im not trying to put anyone down with this, just trying to help.
Go around each toe methodically and look for the marks. Bear in mind that claw marks dont have to be sharp and clear but can be blunt, faint and hard to spot.
Look at the pic showing the two prints, take the right print and look approx 1cm in front of the two middle digits, and possibly the right digit as well.
The left print also shows signs on digit 2 & 4 (starting form the left).
Bear in mind that items like the stick / vegetation will possibly have prevented any marks from being made.
Im not trying to put anyone down with this, just trying to help.
I know exactly the marks you mean, but they aren't part of the print. They are indents already there and in one case a pocket that the track caused by covering the original indent with pressure and creating a small air cavity. The two marks each side of the stick were caused by two buds each side of the semi submerged stick moving back and forth as pressure was put upon it. You can see further evidence of this by the way the tip of the stick has created a larger groove further down, but not further up.
Don't worry about putting anyone down. This isn't a personal thing. I'm just presenting the facts as I found them. There were no claw marks, and I looked closely at all the indents that are around the pads were claws would be present. None of them represented anything as fresh as the track and were much older. You can tell this in the picture by the smooth gloss finish rather than the grainy matt texture presented by the fresh track.
Last edited:
If you right click on the pic then select copy image, then open paint, and press ctrl P it should drop the image in.
If the animal has long claws that would normally register, possibly. What I'm thinking is if this is an animal that has spent a lot of time on tarmac / hard surfaces the claws may not register, at least not as much as would normally be expected.
I think I can see what wolfie is refering to, sort of roundish indentations near the toe pads on the print with the ruler.
No worries JD. I personally would still be a bit concerned about labelling this as a feline print but as the guy on the ground you have a lot more detail than that shown so go with your gut / deductions.
The problem with photos is nearly always the lack of context. Think of it as trying to describe the plot of a film by looking at a still clip. You may get some of the story but most of it wil be lost on you. The more context / details / photos can be given instead of just "a mystery print" the better.
The problem with photos is nearly always the lack of context. Think of it as trying to describe the plot of a film by looking at a still clip. You may get some of the story but most of it wil be lost on you. The more context / details / photos can be given instead of just "a mystery print" the better.
