Which of the following is considered indirect evidence in wildlife investigations?

Indirect evidence in wildlife investigations refers to clues that imply the presence or activity of animals without requiring direct observation of the animals themselves. This type of evidence is crucial for understanding wildlife populations and behaviors, particularly when direct sightings are rare or difficult.

Tracks, feces, and feeding signs are prime examples of indirect evidence because they provide information about the species present in an area and their habits. For instance, tracks can indicate the size and type of animal, while feces can reveal dietary habits and health status. Feeding signs show what plants or prey are being utilized, giving insight into the animal's habitat use and behavior. Collectively, these clues allow wildlife officers and researchers to infer animal presence and activity patterns even when the animals are not directly observed.

The other choices are forms of evidence but represent direct evidence or anecdotal information. Visual sightings provide a direct view of the animals, while photographic evidence captures moments of animal presence. Interviews with community members gather subjective experiences and observations but do not constitute physical evidence of the animals' presence in the wild. Therefore, tracks, feces, and feeding signs distinctly classify as indirect evidence in wildlife investigations.