Help ID this track

I am the master jk i was the first one to say Wolf Even though i have not seen one but i have no doubt in my mind that there are wolves in CT i have seen wolve track in multiple places.
 
Last edited:
Definitely canine - 4 toes instead of 5 (bear).

I have seen wolf tracks that size up here, but could possibly be a large breed dog as well.
 
I'm stumped.

This photo (not mine) is purported to be black bear tracks in wet snow.

IMG deleted

I see a similarity, but I'm by no means an expert.

Here's another from www.bear.org

tracks_snow_trail2_800x600.jpg
 
Last edited:
i would say the the melting snow just had a magnifying effect on the track, which was probably initially not so large.
 
Magnussen said:
It is a canine track.... no doubt..... classic egg shape with nail marks... big... front/right if I'm not mistaken... can't tell if it is domestic or ferral from the pic quality.... those middle toes are prominent (could be a wolf)... if its a domestic, it has spent alot of time in outside. Would be great to get a picture of the whole set to get a stride, gait, straddle... etc.

Its been a while since I was out tracking, though... I'm probably rusty.

Rick
Click to expand...

:thumbup: +1 on the Canine, you took the words out of my mouth 'Ol Bud ;)
 
Tony, did all of the tracks look like the one you photographed? Black bears hind prints look different than their front ones.
 
Hard to tell, but I have tracked Wolf that large on the Kenai Peninsula some years ago.
 
Dog.
Appearing larger because the rear foot stepped in the track of the front foot.
 
Dog.
Appearing larger because the rear foot stepped in the track of the front foot.
 
I spent a winter in Idaho on the Coure d' Alene reservation. Just down the dirt road from my friends property lived a guy (friend of friends) that raised hybred wolves and many of the people in the area owned one or more of his wolves. They are huge and there were many a track in the snow around the area, that looked exactly like the one in the photo. Certainly not an expert on tracking, but have done my fair share, especially in Idaho and if I had to venture a guess, I would say that you captured a wolf track.
 
Ebbtide said:
Dog.
Appearing larger because the rear foot stepped in the track of the front foot.
Click to expand...

The front print is larger than the rear on a dog.... I don't think this was a direct register... dogs don't usually walk that way... cats do.

It is a fuzzy pic so I may be wrong... but its my best guess.
 
Magnussen said:
The front print is larger than the rear on a dog.... I don't think this was a direct register... dogs don't usually walk that way... cats do.

It is a fuzzy pic so I may be wrong... but its my best guess.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with "identify this track" pictures:

1. The photo is blurred.

2. We don't know the size. Despite the OP's hand in the picture, we don't know his hand size. Most of us don't, anyway. We need an inarguable measure in there... quarter, dollar bill, or 12-inch ruler.

3. We don't know the exact location. That helps us rule out the unlikely. For example, dogs are unlikely in the far off wilderness, and wolves are unlikely in areas bounded by civilization.

4. We don't know the temperature over the last week or so.

5. One picture is NOT good for identifying tracks. We need two pictures, at least, from different angles, as well as an establishing picture to show the stride of the animal.

That said...

1. It's a canine based on the heart-shaped heel pad. Cats have an M-shaped heel pad, and bears have a very different configuration to the pads entirely.

2. It's an indirect register, which has put the rear foot *nearly* into the front print. Just enough to blur the two. That's largely indicative of a canine. Cats tend to directly register, whereas dogs rarely do (foxes do, and some dogs at a slow speed will directly register as well). (Good job Magnussen!)

3. A bear will put its front and rear tracks fairly close together as it ambles. There is no rear print in this picture. Compare it to the pics of known bear tracks already posted in this thread: see the front and rear feet? Very close together.

4. The print shows very evident indication of having melted. That can more than double the size of the track.

Conclusion: without more evidence, we can rule out the extraordinary and stick with the ordinary. This is a dog track. I'd say something in the 80+ pound range (retriever to shepherd), after about two days of exposure to sunlight and/or just-above-freezing conditions.
 
You da man.... great points........ I was thinking shepard.... but I hate "taking a stab" at these kinds of things.

Two years ago, I was asked to have a look at some track pics that the local National Park staff took at the scene of a cougar sighting. I live in Southern Ontario!!!! The pics were horrible.... 1ft of snow. I asked to be shown the site and soon realized that it had been 3days since the pics and everyone and there mother had walked the area. I spent 2 days scouring the area for tracks to no avail. I didn't think there was any chance of a cougar being in the area and chalked it up to a myth. A year later someone hit a cougar on the road, two towns over!! Next time I'll bring a partner to track cougar "myths".
 
Things do get weird: everyone by now knows about the cougar that was shot and killed by police in the center of an established Chicago neighborhood...which is like finding a cougar in Queens, NY! And similarly, a coyote strolled into a Loop sandwich shop and jumped into the drink cooler to relax. There are areas completely bounded by civilization (yes, even the Loop!)... but then, this is why these stories make national news.

But overall, we should be skeptical of cougar claims and wolf claims except in areas where they are common... or if there is supporting evidence of them (scat, fur, missing pets, etc.) in uncommon areas.

Any tracker will concur with your skepticism, Magnussen: you don't go off a single set of prints, and never off of a single footprint. You follow the trail, not the print!
 
Watchful said:
you don't go off a single set of prints, and never off of a single footprint. You follow the trail, not the print!
Click to expand...


There couldn't be a more true statement.... I track more from the lay of the land and the feeling(for lack of a better word) the tracks give off than the tracks themselves. I will take measurements on several prints to confirn species... but at this point that's where it ends for me.... I can't distinguish sex, whether its scared, hungry, lost.... etc... I can tell which way it has been looking at times when the tracks are ideal.... but i am a beginner.


Its a fascinating passtime... that for me, combines art and science.
 
Watchful said:
Here's the problem with "identify this track" pictures:

1. The photo is blurred. Yeah I am sorry about that!

2. We don't know the size. Despite the OP's hand in the picture, we don't know his hand size. Most of us don't, anyway. We need an inarguable measure in there... quarter, dollar bill, or 12-inch ruler. about 7 1/2" from tip of middle finger to wrist on thumb side.

3. We don't know the exact location. That helps us rule out the unlikely. For example, dogs are unlikely in the far off wilderness, and wolves are unlikely in areas bounded by civilization. Highway rest area, edge of woods. Northern CT, bordering MA
4. We don't know the temperature over the last week or so. 30 defree high, 9 degree low F

5. One picture is NOT good for identifying tracks. We need two pictures, at least, from different angles, as well as an establishing picture to show the stride of the animal. CAN'T HELP YOU THERE :o
That said...

1. It's a canine based on the heart-shaped heel pad. Cats have an M-shaped heel pad, and bears have a very different configuration to the pads entirely.

2. It's an indirect register, which has put the rear foot *nearly* into the front print. Just enough to blur the two. That's largely indicative of a canine. Cats tend to directly register, whereas dogs rarely do (foxes do, and some dogs at a slow speed will directly register as well). (Good job Magnussen!)

3. A bear will put its front and rear tracks fairly close together as it ambles. There is no rear print in this picture. Compare it to the pics of known bear tracks already posted in this thread: see the front and rear feet? Very close together.

4. The print shows very evident indication of having melted. That can more than double the size of the track.

Conclusion: without more evidence, we can rule out the extraordinary and stick with the ordinary. This is a dog track. I'd say something in the 80+ pound range (retriever to shepherd), after about two days of exposure to sunlight and/or just-above-freezing conditions.
Click to expand...

Thanks everyone for your input and I am sorry to post such an inconclusive print. Next time thanks to all your great info, I know to get more detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top