FEETFEAT.COMTrackWise

Animal Track & Sign Reference

Three tables, pulled directly from the same functions behind the track size, stride & speed, and track aging tools — a lookup page for narrowing candidates and understanding the math, not a species verdict.

Print size ranges by candidate group

Every animal in the track size estimator’s reference set, grouped by the broader category it belongs to. Ranges overlap deliberately — that overlap is exactly why claw visibility, gait, habitat, and a second or third print all matter as much as one length-and-width measurement.

Canids (foxes, coyotes, wolves)

AnimalLength (cm)Width (cm)Claws visible
Red Fox4.56.53.85Usually
Coyote5.77.64.46Usually
Gray Wolf8.912.77.610.2Usually

Felids (bobcat, cougar)

AnimalLength (cm)Width (cm)Claws visible
Bobcat4.46.44.46.4No (retracted / hoof)
Mountain Lion (Cougar)7.610.27.611.4No (retracted / hoof)

Bears

AnimalLength (cm)Width (cm)Claws visible
American Black Bear1318812Usually

Raccoons

AnimalLength (cm)Width (cm)Claws visible
Raccoon6.4956.5Usually

Opossum

AnimalLength (cm)Width (cm)Claws visible
Virginia Opossum56.556.5Usually

Weasel family

AnimalLength (cm)Width (cm)Claws visible
Striped Skunk3.24.433.8Usually
American Mink3.853.24.4Usually

Beaver

AnimalLength (cm)Width (cm)Claws visible
North American Beaver1418913Usually

Deer family (hoofed, no claws)

AnimalLength (cm)Width (cm)Claws visible
White-tailed Deer58.53.85.7No (retracted / hoof)
Elk1013810No (retracted / hoof)
Moose12181013No (retracted / hoof)

Run your own measurement through the Animal Track Size & Species Estimatorto get a ranked shortlist rather than reading this table by eye — the tool also weighs claw visibility, which this table alone can’t do for you.

How relative stride length becomes actual speed

Relative stride length (RSL) — stride divided by the animal’s own hip height — is what separates a walk from a trot from a run, not the raw stride length by itself. The three size tiers below (Small (0.2 m hip height), Medium (0.5 m hip height), Large (1.0 m hip height)) are illustrative only, not a claim about any specific animal’s legs; they exist to show that the same RSL produces a very different real-world speed depending on how big the trackmaker is.

Size tierGaitStride (m)RSLSpeed
Small (0.2 m hip height)walk0.31.52.48 km/h (1.54 mph)
Small (0.2 m hip height)trot0.482.45.44 km/h (3.38 mph)
Small (0.2 m hip height)run0.73.510.21 km/h (6.35 mph)
Medium (0.5 m hip height)walk0.751.53.92 km/h (2.44 mph)
Medium (0.5 m hip height)trot1.22.48.6 km/h (5.34 mph)
Medium (0.5 m hip height)run1.753.516.15 km/h (10.03 mph)
Large (1.0 m hip height)walk1.51.55.55 km/h (3.45 mph)
Large (1.0 m hip height)trot2.42.412.16 km/h (7.56 mph)
Large (1.0 m hip height)run3.53.522.84 km/h (14.19 mph)

Notice the trot row: a small animal’s trot (0.48 m stride) tops out around 5.4 km/h, while a large animal’s trot (2.4 m stride) is already faster than the small animal’s run. Same relative effort, very different ground speed — measure your own trail’s stride and an estimated hip height in the Stride Length Gait & Speed Calculator rather than trying to eyeball where it falls on this table.

How quickly each substrate loses readable detail

Baseline is calm, dry, undisturbed conditions. Worst-case applies every degrading factor the aging tool tracks at once — rain or dew, strong wind, direct sun or thaw, and a freeze-thaw cycle — which is why it collapses so much faster than the baseline. Real field conditions almost always sit somewhere between the two.

SubstrateBaseline windowWorst-case window
mud2496 hours1.56 hours
snow1248 hours0.83 hours
sand212 hours0.50.8 hours
dust630 hours0.51.9 hours
grass16 hours0.50.5 hours

Reading all three together

Say you find a print roughly 6.8 cm long and 5.2 cm wide in mud, with clear claw marks, and it rained lightly the night before you found it. The size-and-claws table above puts a Coyote and a Raccoon in a dead tie on measurement alone — which is exactly the situation where a single number can’t settle it, and why the site keeps saying “shortlist, not verdict.” Shape breaks the tie in practice: a raccoon’s front print looks distinctly hand-like, with long, spread toes, while a coyote’s is a tighter, more oval paw. The mud-plus-rain aging row tells you the print is probably good for another 12–48 hours before it’s past reliable reading, which is your practical window to go back with a tape measure, a camera, or a plaster kit if you want a second look.

None of the three tables replaces the others, and none of them replaces a second print, a trail, or a field guide. They’re here to be looked up quickly and to show, honestly, how much a track alone can and can’t tell you.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this page a way to identify a species from one print?

No. Every table on this page narrows a field of candidates or shows how the underlying math behaves — none of it hands you a single confirmed species. A track's category group only rules animals in or out by size and claw visibility; several animals routinely land in the same group. Treat the result as a shortlist worth checking against a full field guide, a clearer print further along the trail, or a local expert — never as a verdict from one measurement.

Why does the gait table use "small / medium / large" instead of naming species?

Because tying a specific hip height to a specific species is exactly the kind of precise claim this site won't make without a cited source. The three size tiers are round, illustrative numbers used only to demonstrate a real point: the same relative stride length (how stretched-out a stride is compared to the animal's own leg length) produces a much faster absolute speed on a large animal than on a small one. The physics is the site's published formula; the sizes are just a demonstration, not a claim about any real animal's legs.

Why do the substrate windows show a range instead of one number?

Because track aging is inherently approximate — the low end of each range is a conservative "don't count on it past this" estimate, and the high end is how long a print might realistically still be readable under genuinely calm, dry, undisturbed conditions. The worst-case row applies every degrading factor the aging tool tracks (rain, wind, sun, and a freeze-thaw cycle) at once, which is why it's so much shorter than the baseline — in the field you'll usually be looking at something in between.

Where do these numbers actually come from?

Every row on this page is generated by calling this site's own track-size, stride-speed, and track-aging tool functions directly — the exact same code the interactive calculators use — rather than being retyped into a separate table by hand. If a calculator's underlying ranges or formula are ever refined, this page updates with it automatically instead of quietly going out of sync.

Educational reference only. Ranges, size tiers, and windows here are general field-tracking guidance derived from this site’s own tools, not a certain identification or a precise clock — verify anything that matters against a full field guide or a local expert.

Use it with