Reading any sign involves understanding the inferences that can be drawn from what you do see, and also understanding the inferences to be drawn from what is not there to see. Sometimes, the most important information you can glean from sign is what is not there that should be there. This takes practice and education. We all learn to do deductive reasoning, drawing conclusions from known premises. INDUCTIVE reasoning requires you to have an education about how things work. When you see only part of what should be there to see, you can KNOW that the rest was there, but is gone from view for some reason. Blood trailing can be like that. It will tell you what part of the animal the would is located in, by the color, volume, and location on the forest floor and brush where you find it. But, as a deer continues to travel, the blood trail may dry up. That also tells a tracker something about the wound. I tracked a deer for another hunter which left small spots of blood from the point of impact, along the trail until it lay down in some horseweeds about 75 yds from where it was hit. The location of a bloodstain in the bed( kidney shaped flattening in the weeds) showed me that he had grazed the chest of the buck, causing it to bleed profusely, but then as the bleeding clotted, and the blood flow slowed, it collected in the fur on its chest. By the time the deer got up and left that bed, the blood flow had stopped. As it was, the blood was leaving droplets only about every 20 feet or so the last 30 yds to the bed. My blood tracking friends hurried from one drop to the next, putting toilet paper squares on each drop, then hurrying on to the next. I was showing the landowner how I track prints, but I cut a 4 foot stick for him, and told him to put the stick next to the next drop of blood and let the stick slowly lean forward toward the next drop, without lifting the stick off the ground. He found that the next drop was within 6 inches of the other end of the stick I had cut for him, and that each succeeding drop was located about 4 feet from the last. Then I showed him how to determine eye dominance from the tracks, and when he was satisfied we were tracking a right eye dominant deer, I had him look back at all that toilet paper on the forest floor, and, sure enough, the buck was walking in a slow clockwise arc on the flat forest floor. Every time we came to a cross trail, my friends went LEFT. And were busy scouring the debris on the trail looking for that next drop of blood. We went RIGHT, and within a few feet, found blood. We called them over and showed them the droplet, and barely had time to remove our hand before they slapped TP on it! And off to the races they went! The landowner didn't say anything, and neither did I. I just kept reading the tracks, and following the wounded deer. The guys were at least 150 feet north of us when we found the deer's bed. I don't know what they thought they were seeing or following. It certainly was not blood, and they were not gaining any information from either own hard work, or from mine. I refer to missing evidence in these situation as " Negative evidence", as it does tell me something when its not present, and should be, if other facts are correct. Tracks don't lie.