I agree with Eska and Mighty...I think you are micro-analyzing things. This is, as they said, an animated movie...not a documentary, and not even a dramatic, fictional live-action movie. It is irrelevant whether or not any parts of his fur were still wet. Why does that even matter at all? How does it affect what you saw in the subsequent scenes?

I think this question is getting a bit too realistic. Balto is a cartoon, and I doubt the production crew was going for a 100% realistic approach to the scene. Balto honestly looked dry by the time he set off, so he probably was.

I agree with Eska. This question is rather odd, and I'm just going to leave it where it's at.

@Eska Because I was wondering if some parts of Balto's fur are still wet after he recovered.

This is kind of an odd question...
Why are you so curious about this?

@Mightybalto1925 Well I can probably see some traces of damp in Balto's fur in some parts of the scene before he left, especially on his chest and tail. Is this true?

No one here can give you a definite answer. Balto Source is a fan site, so all you're going to receive for answers are opinions.

Anyway, films don't follow the laws of reality to a T. In a realistic scenario, Balto still would have been wet (he likely would have died from hypothermia when he went under the water), possibly damp by the time he left. In the film, he honestly looked dry to me by the time he left. Even though he was still clearly wet only moments before he left.