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.
am I close to where you say?
Southey, on the right print yes. On the left print there is also another possible on digit 4 closer to the ruler.
I think we can call this one an "open case with on going enquiries"!
Sometimes with tracking the answers remain out of our grasp. Hard to deal with sometimes but makes it better when we do find the answers to other tracking questions. I think of my tracking deductions as temporary until they can be disproved by better info. When you track on your own you are always right, even when you realise you are wrong because you then right again! (hope that make sense)
The comments on the photos were general ones. I've seen some terrible track photos (mine included) that can totally change the appearance of the track. Like I said the main thing for photos is context, context, context. Gaits, routes in, routes out, close ups, 360 views of environment etc, etc..... they are all vital, the more info the better.
Hehe., if you notice, in the whole thread I've not actually labelled the prints as anything but what they are.... Unusual prints without claw marks that follow a route unusual for the animals I'm familiar with here in the UK. Everyone pointing to a feline solution has certainly never been me as apart from the tracks, I have no evidence to support that theory. It could well be a dog that is deformed. I have no evidence other than those prints. A 2D image of a 3D (one might argue 4D if you include the mental image created by the gait and trail as a whole) environment can be misleading as this has proven. I could show more pictures, but the evidence within those is less than the ones shown as they were shallower and taking pictures of the entire trail was fruitless as the resolution did not pick out the prints. I have shown the clearest of those taken as representative of the whole. I wasn't trying to present a scientific paper on the subject. I do too much of that in my day job and this is my fun time. I've been out to the area since, but it's been too dry for prints.
As well as photos try casts for examining prints in detail. Sometimes the negative casts can help reveal previously unnotced detail. Noticed it with a cast I took today. The advantage is that you have the print in 3d, you can then make positive prints and can study the print at your leisure.
Did you have a scout around to see if the animal had left any other signs of being there, such as faeces or hair?