# The Use of an Orthotic Casting Foam as a Track-Plate Medium for Wildlife Research and Monitoring

> Could foam made for casting human feet be the answer to rained-out track plates? Researchers in British Columbia found that orthotic casting foam recorded claws, pads and even the pebbly texture of a porcupine’s foot, and kept those tracks through three weeks of rain, hail and frost. Expert trackers rated the foam tracks better than sand and usually better than sooted aluminum, though some animals were wary of the sinking surface.

Summary by Kersey Lawrence, Original Wisdom. Updated 9 November 2026. Page: https://www.originalwisdom.com/tracking-literature/2009-hooper-rea-use-orthotic-casting-foam/

## Citation and access

- **Authors:** Justin Hooper and Roy V. Rea
- **Year published:** 2009
- **Journal or source:** Wildlife Biology
- **Full citation:** Hooper, J. and Rea, R. V. 2009. The use of an orthotic casting foam as a track-plate medium for wildlife research and monitoring. Wildlife Biology 15(1): 106–112.
- **DOI:** 10.2981/07-093
- **Access status:** Hosted (freely available elsewhere)
- **PDF:** https://www.originalwisdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/2009_Hooper_and_Rea_the-use-of-an-orthotic-casting-foam-as-a-track-plate-medium-for-wildlife-research-and-monitoring.pdf

## Tags

- **Species:** Mammals > American beaver; Mammals > American black bear; Mammals > American marten; Mammals > American red squirrel; Mammals > Domestic cat; Mammals > Domestic dog; Mammals > European rabbit; Mammals > Fisher; Mammals > Guinea pig; Birds > Merganser; Mammals > Moose; Mammals > Mountain lion; Mammals > North American porcupine; Mammals > Rat
- **Region:** North America > Canada
- **Tracking:** Track photographs; Tracking; Tracks; Tracks and signs identification
- **Behaviour and ecology:** Behaviour
- **Methods and technology:** Descriptive statistics; Direct observation; Survey instruments
- **Data type:** New field data
- **Observer qualification:** Reported but not validated
- **Discipline:** Wildlife tracking
- **Year published:** 2009

## Detailed keywords

- **Species:** Studied (track makers in the lab trials): four domestic dogs (about 4, 10, 19 and 41 kg), three domestic cats (about 6.5, 3 and 0.25 kg), a rabbit (about 3 kg) and a rat (about 0.25 kg). Responses to the foam also watched in captive animals: a cougar (Felis concolor, about 90 kg), a black bear (Ursus americanus), guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) and domestic rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Tracks recorded on foam plates in the field: moose (Alces alces), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), pine marten or fisher (Martes spp.), beaver (Castor canadensis) and merganser ducks (Mergus spp.).
- **Location and habitat:** British Columbia, Canada. Lab trials at the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) animal shelter in Prince George, in narrow dog running pens. Animal response tests at the Northern Lights Wildlife Shelter, Smithers. Field trial in the Aleza Lake Research Forest, on wildlife trails, a fallen spruce log and a beaver dam.
- **Topics:** track plates and track stations; track-plate media (Biofoam orthotic phenolic casting foam, coarse sand, fine sand, very fine sand, sooted aluminum); track quality; three-dimensional versus two-dimensional imprints; registering claws, pads and negative spaces; track shape and measurements; weather resistance (rain, hail, freezing); rain shelters and the behavioural bias they can cause; animal wariness and odour of survey devices; trampling and overlapping tracks; hair retained in the foam; archiving tracks; cost (about US$3 per 60 x 90 cm plate including plywood, US$2 to replace the foam).
- **Statistics or models:** Descriptive statistics only (means and standard deviations of expert ratings on a 1 to 10 Likert scale). No significance testing, because only five experts responded. Inconsistencies: (1) Table 1 gives a standard deviation of 7.80 for Cat 1 on coarse sand (mean 1.6), which is not possible on a 1 to 10 scale and is probably a typing error for 0.78. (2) The Results say two of three cats were wary of the foam and that rabbits and guinea pigs stepped on it reluctantly after sniffing and nibbling, but the Discussion says only bears and guinea pigs were wary and that “the dogs and other animals tested showed no response”. (3) The table spells coarse sand “Course sand”. (4) The cat average for foam is given as 7.46; the three table values average 7.47.
- **Data type:** New field data: lab trials on 23 August and 20 September 2005; field trial 3 to 24 October 2005; expert questionnaire on photographs from the lab trials.

## Synopsis

### 1. What they did

Track plates are a cheap and gentle way to learn which animals are using an area, but most track-plate media fail in rain, heavy dew or even fog, and hard surfaces such as sooted aluminum give only flat, two-dimensional prints. Rain shelters help, but they cost money and can change how animals behave. The authors tested Biofoam, a non-toxic phenolic foam made for taking casts of human feet for orthotics, as a waterproof medium that could record three-dimensional tracks.

- Lab trials (August and September 2005). At an animal shelter in Prince George, four dogs, three cats, a rabbit and a rat walked over plates of about 60 x 90 cm made of casting foam (2 cm thick, taped to plywood), coarse sand, fine sand, very fine sand and sooted aluminum, set flush with the ground in dog runs. The best track from each animal on each medium was photographed.

- Animal responses. They filmed the first minute or so of each animal’s approach to the plates. At a wildlife shelter in Smithers they also placed foam plates in a cougar and black bear paddock and a guinea pig and rabbit pen, and watched for 20 to 30 minutes.

- Expert questionnaire. The photographs were sent to people who had published on wildlife tracking or had extensive tracking experience (such as tracking instructors or trappers). They rated each track from 1 (low quality) to 10 (high quality) and could explain their ratings.

- Field trial (3 to 24 October 2005). Six foam plates were set on wildlife trails, a fallen log and a beaver dam in the Aleza Lake Research Forest.

- Extra tests. Running tap water over a tracked foam plate for 10 minutes, and freezing a tracked plate at -20 °C.

### 2. What they found

Track quality

- Only five experts replied, so only means and standard deviations are reported.

- Foam and sooted aluminum gave the best tracks overall; all three sands did poorly by comparison.

- Foam was rated highest for six of the nine animals. Sooted aluminum was rated higher for one dog and two cats (Cat 3, the smallest at about 0.25 kg, scored 4.8 on foam and 8.4 on soot).

- Average dog scores: foam 8.03, sooted aluminum 6.6. Average cat scores: foam 7.46, sooted aluminum 7.83.

- The experts noted that foam registered claws and clearly showed all pads and the negative spaces between them. Sand outlines looked blurry and enlarged. One expert said they could picture the animal’s foot when looking at the foam tracks.

- Foot hair was sometimes pinched and pulled out by the foam.

Animal responses

- Dogs ignored the foam but all stopped to sniff the sooted aluminum, which the authors put down to the smell of the acetylene soot.

- Two of the three cats seemed wary of the sinking feeling of the foam and pulled their paws back.

- A cougar of about 90 kg walked over the foam again and again as if it were not there.

- A black bear left prints only after sniffing, scratching and breaking up some of the foam. Rabbits and guinea pigs stepped on it reluctantly after sniffing and nibbling small bits.

Field trial

- Tracks of moose, red squirrel, porcupine, pine marten or fisher, beaver and merganser ducks were found on the plates. Most were of high quality; the pebble-like texture of a porcupine’s foot pad was clearly visible.

- On a fallen spruce, red squirrels trampled one plate with hundreds of overlapping tracks that were hard to tell apart. On a beaver run at about 45°, most of the foam was knocked off the board.

- About 30 cm of rain and temperatures from -5 to +18 °C did not seem to affect the plates or tracks, apart from tiny dimples, probably from hail, on one plate.

- Running water and freezing did not harm the tracks, and the foam still took new prints afterwards.

### 3. What they concluded

- Casting foam generally captures higher quality tracks than sand or sooted aluminum, and records the true shape and size of the foot, which matters because track measurements are used in identification. Two-dimensional prints from soot should be measured with caution.

- Foam plates stood up to heavy rain, hail and freezing without a rain shelter, so they avoid the behavioural bias that covers can cause.

- Weaknesses: tracks can be lost to trampling, as with other media, and plates need a level surface or the foam can be knocked off.

- Some animals were wary of the foam, so caution is needed when using it to detect natural behaviour or movement. All test animals were domestic or captive; the authors suggest checking for bias in wild animals with a second, independent method.

- Foam plates are cheap (about US$3 per plate, US$2 to replace the foam), simple to build with foam, lumber and duct tape, light to carry, need little maintenance, and the tracks can be kept for later reference. They recorded animals from guinea pigs (500 to 1000 g) to moose (400 to 500 kg).

- The authors recommend more rigorous field testing and that ecologists begin using foam where they want high-quality three-dimensional tracks or need to monitor in rainy places without shelters.

### 4. How tracking was or was not used

The study is about a medium for recording footprints. Experts in wildlife tracking judged the quality of the tracks from photographs, and the field plates were read for the species that crossed them. The authors stress that clear claws, pads, negative spaces, shape and measurements are what make tracks identifiable. No trailing was involved.

### 5. Tracker or observer certification

Reported but not validated. The five experts were chosen because they had published scientific papers or books on wildlife tracking, or had extensive tracking experience (such as tracking instructors or trappers). They are not named, and no certification or test of their skill is reported. The paper also does not say who identified the species on the field plates.

### 6. Other technologies, skills or innovations

- Biofoam orthotic casting foam (Smithers Bio-medical Systems) as a track-plate medium, cut to 2 cm thick with a hacksaw blade and taped to half-inch plywood.

- Sooted aluminum plates made with an acetylene torch modified to give more soot.

- Digital macro photography of tracks (6.3 megapixel Fuji Finepix S6000fd).

- Video of animals approaching the plates.

### 7. Implications for conservation (from the paper)

- Track plates are a cheap, non-intrusive way to survey animal presence, relative abundance and activity over large areas. A waterproof medium that needs no rain shelter could make them usable in wet places and seasons and lower costs.

- Researchers should keep survey devices from biasing animal behaviour; wariness of the foam in some species needs testing in wild animals.

### 8. Implications for tracking (Original Wisdom's observations)

_These are Original Wisdom's observations, not the authors'._

- Foam plates keep a three-dimensional record of a track that can be stored and looked at again, which could be useful for teaching tracks and signs identification and for checking identifications later.

- The study shows how much the substrate shapes what a track can tell us: the same animal left a clear, measurable print in foam and an enlarged, ambiguous one in coarse sand.

## Cite this summary

Lawrence, K. 2026. Summary of: The Use of an Orthotic Casting Foam as a Track-Plate Medium for Wildlife Research and Monitoring (Hooper and Rea, 2009). Original Wisdom, Tracking Literature. https://www.originalwisdom.com/tracking-literature/2009-hooper-rea-use-orthotic-casting-foam/