Can anyone post a chart or something that gives the approximate size, weight or age for deer in relationship to the prints they leave?

Would sure appreciate it.

Uncle Matt (in IL)

Type in google, deer weight girth, and start reading. Sorry I don't know how to post a sight.

The size of a deers tracks can't be used to accurately determine a deers age and is only a rough estimate of a deers overal size.Deer feet come in a variety just like peoples feet.Some heavier deer have smaller feet than some lighter ones and vice versa.

i would think that would be very hard to chart due to different soil types and the degree of wettness of said soil and also whether the deer was walking , trotting , running , or jumping

If you'll go deep enough into the archives, you'll find a long-continued thread on this topic started by yours truly.

I've been informally "studying" this issue while scouting and hunting for two years now. I have measured dozens of deer tracks of all age classes. That said, I must respectfully disagree with previous posters here. I have found that deer track width is, in fact, a very accurate method of aging deer.

Obviously, in some conditions you get screwy results, but if you go about it correctly you can really enhance your knowledge of your local deer. I went out this year on the last weekend of the season, with a protracter in hand instead of a rifle, since I had filled all my tags. I caught a perfect 2" skiff of fresh snow and bebopped around for the fun of it. I measured tracks of 2 3 1/2 year old bucks and 2 4 1/2 year old bucks that had clearly survived the season. Two of these bucks I actually saw, in addition to measuring their tracks. I'm pumped for next year.

In measuring tracks, I find that a high schooler's protractor is the right tool for the job, handy for jobbing into the snow. A light skiff of new snow is the best medium, if it's too deep or to crusty you're going to have trouble getting accurate measures. Moist, but not super-muddy soils, are also ideal. Try to find a walking track, then slip along and measure at least 3 different tracks. Peg the width of the track at the median value. In other words, if you get 2 1/8, 2 1/4, and 2 from three different measures, call it 2 1/8", the center value. Most often, under good conditions, I'll get all three measures the same or say 2 measures at 2 1/4 and one at 2 5/16, which I'd call 2 1/4".

Here in western MT the following chart will approximate ages:

For bucks

1 3/4" wide tracks mean a 1 1/2 y.o. buck
2" wide tracks mean a 2 1/2 y.o. buck
2 1/4" wide tracks mean a 3 1/2 y.o. buck
2 3/8" wide tracks mean a 4 1/2 y.o. buck
2 1/2+ wide tracks mean a 5 1/2+ y.o. buck

For does I'm not hung up on aging them, but it's a rare doe that will go over 2" wide, 2 1/8" being about the max. Most does fall in the 1 3/4 to 2" range.

Let me also say that I have yet to observe the case of a really big deer with small feet or a small deer with big feet. The ranges of observations within an age class tends to be under 1/8".

I'll even give you an easy formula for predicting body weight from track width. The basic formula is easy but will tend to underestimate weights as a buck gets older. Take track width squared multiplied by a factor of 35. (This gives 107 lbs. for a 1 1/2 y.o., 140 lbs. for a 2 1/2 y.o., 179 lbs. for a 3 1/2 y.o.) I'm working up a more complicated, and more accurate formula.

Interestingly, to stir up even more argument, my data indicates that the famed Benoit brothers are either,

A) Completely full of ****, or
B) Dealing with an entirely different species of deer than we have in MT.

Outdoor life quotes them as looking for deer tracks AT LEAST 3 1/4", well I'm sorry but at 3 1/4" wide you've got a good sized cow elk that would weight right at 400 lbs. So the Benoits consider any buck under 400 lbs. not worth going after? Remember, my formula will underestimate weights for larger bucks, and the formula puts a "mere" 3" wide track at a 315 lb. live weight. I propose that there may not be a whitetail anywhere in N. America alive right now with a 3 1/4" wide hoofprint. Personally, I doubt 3 1/8".

Anyhow, I hope this gets you thinking.

Gee, I'm replying to myself. How uncool is that?

My new and "improved" formula for estimating body weight from track width is this:
(Track width in inches to the 2.5 power) times 25. So a 2" track is (2x2x1.41) x 25 = 5.64 x 25 = 141 lbs. A 3" track is (3x3x1.73) x 25 = 15.57 x 25 = 389 lbs. That's a big buck.