How long do footprints last?

[oldranger]

Maverick,

My guess is the only chance would be in the dirt not in the snow.

Mike

[AlmostThere]

I wouldn't count on prints still being there after snowmelt. Footprints wouldn't maintain cohesion under the water flow of melt. At this point it would make more sense to search for gear remnants or other evidence. I would ask those who knew Larry's gear what he carried, and pass out lists to everyone going out, so if they come across anything they'll know whether it's just lost stuff that fell off someone's pack.

[maverick]

AlmostThere wrote:
At this point it would make more sense to search for gear remnants or other evidence.
I would ask those who knew Larry's gear what he carried, and pass out lists to everyone
going out, so if they come across anything they'll know whether it's just lost stuff that
fell off someone's pack.

Yes, this list of gear has already been made (pictures included). Thanks AT

[Rockchucker]

No way Larry's footprints are still visible. I day hike the Sierra's weekly, my prints last at most 4 weeks. And I know exactly where to look.

[Baffman]

Not eerie, but pretty damned cool to see Sierramel involved in this topic as well!

[gdurkee]

Mav: Hmmm. Interesting point. Under certain conditions, yes, you can see tracks as they melt from covering snow. The original track compresses the snow into ice; when it's later covered by more snow and then the top layers melt, those tracks are harder and show as raised above the surface.

Of course, in the case of Larry's search, there were so many tracks made by searchers that might not be useful, in addition to the very narrow conditions under which that can happen.

The other point of tracks in snow is they show up very well from the air. I was once able to follow two skiers from a helicopter even after a two day storm had covered their tracks. When they crossed a lake, the smooth conditions showed the underlying ski tracks pretty clearly as differences in shadow/density as the fresh snow settled.

Also, I've seen tracks made in mud -- especially by horses as Mike says -- show very clear and fresh the following spring. They get frozen and are preserved pretty well in the fall. And, of course, there's the famous 3.5 million year old footprints discovered by Mary Leakey and team some years ago:



But, all that said, back to the original question. In normal sand or dirt, a footprint gets pretty fuzzy by about day 3, though still very recognizable.

g.

[maverick]

George wrote:
Mav: Hmmm. Interesting point. Under certain conditions, yes, you can see tracks as
they melt from covering snow. The original track compresses the snow into ice; when
it's later covered by more snow and then the top layers melt, those tracks are harder
and show as raised above the surface.

Of course, in the case of Larry's search, there were so many tracks made by searchers
that might not be useful, in addition to the very narrow conditions under which that
can happen.

Thanks George, good and useful information.

[sparky]

I am pretty confident that something happened before the storm. I feel the air searches would have seen tracks in the snow. Unless he was in the window/pyramind peak area as it wasn't searched.