Anticipation and Prediction
Although in principle it is possible to follow a trail by simply looking for one sign after the other, this may prove so time-consuming that the tracker will never catch up with the quarry. Instead, trackers place themselves in the position of their quarry in order to anticipate the route it may have taken (Liebenberg, 1990). They will thereby be able to decide in advance where they can expect to find signs and thus not waste time looking for them.
Trackers will often look for spoor in obvious places such as openings between bushes, where the animal would most likely have moved. In thick bushes they will look for the most accessible throughways. Where the spoor crosses an open clearing, they will look in the general direction for access ways on the other side of the clearing. If the animal was moving from shade to shade, they will look for spoor in the shade ahead. If their quarry has consistently moved in a general direction, it may be possible to follow the most likely route by focusing on the terrain, and to look for signs of spoor only occasionally. They must, however, always be alert for an abrupt change in direction.
Animals usually make use of a network of paths to move from one locality to another. If it is clear that an animal was using a particular path, this can simply be followed up to the point where it forks, or to where the animal has left the path. Where one of several paths may have been used, trackers must of course determine which path that specific animal used. This may not always be easy, since many animals often use the same paths.
In areas of high animal densities that have much-used animal paths which interlink, it may seem impossible to follow tracks. However, once tracks have been located on an animal path, it is often possible for a tracker to follow the path even though no further tracks are seen. By looking to either side of the path, the tracker can establish if the animal has moved away from the path, and then follow the new trail.
In difficult terrain, where signs are sparse, trackers may have to rely extensively on anticipating the animal's movements. In order to move fast enough to overtake the animal, one may not be able to detect all the signs. Trackers sometimes identify themselves with the animal to such an extent that they follow an imaginary route which they think the animal would most likely have taken, only confirming their expectations with occasional signs (Liebenberg, 1990).
When trackers come to hard, stony ground, where tracks are virtually impossible to discern, apart from the odd small pebble that has been overturned, they may move around the patch of hard ground in order to find the spoor in softer ground.
When the trackers lose the spoor, they first search obvious places for signs, choosing several likely access ways through the bush in the general direction of movement. When several trackers work together, they can simply fan out and quarter the ground until one of them finds it. An experienced tracker may be able to predict more or less where the animal was going, and will not waste time in one spot looking for signs, but rather look for it further ahead (Liebenberg, 1990).
Knowledge of the terrain and animal behavior allows trackers to save valuable time by predicting the animal's movements. Once the general direction of movement is established and it is known that an animal path, river or any other natural boundary lies ahead, they can leave the spoor and move to these places, cutting across the trail by sweeping back and forth across the predicted direction in order to pick up tracks a considerable distance ahead (Liebenberg, 1990).
To be able to anticipate and predict the movements of an animal, trackers must know the animal and its environment so well that they can identify themselves with that animal. They must be able to visualize how the animal was moving around, and place themselves in its position.If the animal was moving in a straight line at a steady pace, and it is known that there is a waterhole or a pan further ahead, trackers should leave the spoor to look for signs of it at the waterhole or pan. While feeding, an animal will usually move into the wind, going from one bush to another. If the trackers know the animal's favored food, and know moreover how they generally move, they need not follow its zigzag path, but leave the spoor at places, moving in a straight course to save time, and pick up the spoor further on (Liebenberg, 1990).
Since signs may be fractional or partly obliterated, it may not always be possible to make a complete reconstruction of the animal's movements and activities on the basis of spoor evidence alone. Trackers may therefore have to create a working hypothesis in which spoor evidence is supplemented with hypothetical assumptions based not only on their knowledge of animal behavior, but also on their creative ability to solve new problems and discover new information. The working hypothesis is often a reconstruction of what the animal was doing, how fast it was moving, when it was there, where it was going to and where it might be at that time. Such a working hypothesis enables the trackers to predict the animal's movements. As new information is gathered, they may have to revise their working hypothesis, creating a better reconstruction of the animal's activities. Anticipating and predicting an animal's movements, therefore, involves a continuous process of problem-solving, creating new hypotheses and discovering new information (Liebenberg, 1990).
Read more about this topic: Tracking (hunting)
Famous quotes containing the words anticipation and/or prediction:
“In the wildest nature, there is not only the material of the most cultivated life, and a sort of anticipation of the last result, but a greater refinement already than is ever attained by man.... Nature is prepared to welcome into her scenery the finest work of human art, for she is herself an art so cunning that the artist never appears in his work.”
—Henry David Thoreau (18171862)
“Recent studies that have investigated maternal satisfaction have found this to be a better prediction of mother-child interaction than work status alone. More important for the overall quality of interaction with their children than simply whether the mother works or not, these studies suggest, is how satisfied the mother is with her role as worker or homemaker. Satisfied women are consistently more warm, involved, playful, stimulating and effective with their children than unsatisfied women.”
—Alison Clarke-Stewart (20th century)