i

Authors MICHAEL J. WISDOM is a wildlife biologist, US. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences

Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850; JOHN G. COOK is a wildlife

biologist, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement,

Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeier Lane, La Grande, OR 97850;

MARY M. ROWLAND is a consulting wildlife biologist, 401 Aquarius Way, La Grande

OR 97850; and JAMES H. NOYES is a wildlife biologist, Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildlife, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La

Grande, OR 97850.
Abstract Wisdom, Michael J.; Cook, John G.; Rowland, Mary M.; Noyes, James H. 1993.

Protocols for care and handling of deer and elk at the Starkey Experimental Forest

and Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-311. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 49 p.

Several hundred Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni V. Bailey) and Rocky

Mountain mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus Rafinesque) inhabit a fenced,

25,000-acre enclosure at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range in the Blue

Mountains of northeast Oregon. Research there requires handling most of these animals each winter. In addition, 33 elk calves have been captured and raised for research. Protocols for care and handling of deer and elk are described. Legal requirements for the operation of facilities and research within the enclosure also are

discussed.

Keywords: Elk, mule deer, animal welfare, Starkey Experimental Forest and Range,

Blue Mountains (Oregon), tame elk.
Contents 1

1

1

1

6

6

8

1 0

1 0

11

11

1 4

1 5

2 0

3 4

3 6

3 6

3 6

3 6

3 6

3 7

3 7

3 7

3 9

4 6

Overvlew

introduction

The Setting

The Starkey Research Project

Animal Welfare Act of 1985

Research Activities Covered or Exempted by Law

Legal Requirements and Process

Registration of Research Facilities

Exempt Institutions

Care and Handling of Animals

Assumptions

Protocols for Public and Resource Management Activities

Protocols for Handling Deer

Protocols for Handling Elk

Other Protocols

Functions of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee

Membership

Responsibilities and Legal Authority

Biannual Meeting and Inspection

Annual Report to APHIS

Courtesy Inspections by APHIS

Acknowledgments

Literature Cited

Appendix 1: Justification and Protocols for Studies on Forest Cover-Elk

Energetics Relations in the Blue Mountains of Northeast Oregon

Appendix 2: Definition of Terms
Overview

Introduction

The Setting

Protocols outlined in this document describe the humane and safe treatment of elk

and mule deer used for research at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range near

La Grande, Oregon. Research there includes field studies of deer and elk that

require seasonal care and handling of animals. Partners in the research include the

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), the Pacific Northwest Research

Station of the Forest Service (FS), the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air

and Stream Improvement (NCASI), and Oregon State University (0%). Research

began in 1989 and will continue for 10 years or more.

These protocols prescribe treatments that fully comply with the Animal Welfare Act of

1966, as amended in 1985 (U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. 1985) and administered under

1989 regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The protocols are designed to ensure

that animals are treated humanely, safely, and with minimal stress.

Most of the safeguards and procedures described here are self-imposed by the researchers and not required by law. Rather, they were adopted as the most prudent

process for meeting both “the letter and the intent” of the Animal Welfare Act. These

protocols demonstrate the care, concern, and commitment of scientists to the maintenance of healthy research animals in all phases of study at the Starkey Experimental

Forest and Range.

This document primarily emphasizes protocols used for the four studies developed

during early planning of the Starkey Project. Additional, cooperative studies between

the FS, ODFW, and several private and public institutions have been and will continue

to be conducted. This document does not provide guidelines for all future projects.

Such projects will be assessed by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee

(IACUC), and justification and procedures for them will be appended to this document.

Justification and protocols for the first of these additional projects, the elk-thermal

cover study cooperatively conducted by the FS and a private research organization

(NCASI), have been attached in appendix 1.

The Starkey Experimental Forest and Range is 28 miles southwest of La Grande,

Oregon, within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (fig. 1). The 25,000-acre area

was dedicated for research by the FS in 1940. Since then, it has been the site of

many range and wildlife studies (Skovlin 1991). Today, Starkey supports intensive

research on both game and nongame wildlife, specifically in relation to management

of cattle, timber, roads, recreation, and other human activities (Johnson and others

1991, Thomas 1989).

Geology, soils, physiography, climate, and vegetation of the area, described by

Strickler (1965), are typical of the Blue Mountains of northeast Oregon (Franklin and

Dyrness 1973). Bull and Wisdom (1992) list fauna of the area.

The Starkey Research

Project

In 1987, the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range changed dramatically, when

about 25,000 acres of the research area were enclosed by an 8-foot New Zealand

fence (fig. 2).’ Additional fencing subdivided the area into three parts: the main study

area of 20,673 acres; the northeast study area (intensive timber management area)

’ Bryant, Larry D.; Thomas, Jack W.; Rowland, Mary M.

1992. Techniques to construct New Zealand elk-proof fence.

34 p. Unpublished manuscript. On file with: Pacific Northwest

Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory,

1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande. OR 97850.
STARKEY PROJECT ENCLOSURE

Figure l-Location of Starkey Experimental Forest and Range and its 25,000-acre enclosure

Figure 2-Over 27 miles of game-proof fence

surround deer and elk summer range at the

Starkey Experimental Forest and Range.

2
of 3,587 acres; and the winter feeding and handling area (hereafter referred to as the

winter area) of 805 acres (fig. 1). Population densities of deer and elk in the enclosures were planned to resemble those outside the fence. Study plans call for spring

(that is, preparturition) populations of 475 elk and 250 deer in the main study area,

and 85 elk and 50 deer in the northeast study area.

Within these study areas, Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni V. Bailey) and

Rocky Mountain mule deer (odocoileus hemionus hemionus Rafinesque) are the subjects of intensive research. One set of four studies-referred to as the Starkey

Project-examines deer and elk response to cattle grazing, timber management, traffic on forest roads, and recreation (Johnson and others 1991).

The four studies of the Starkey Project take place on summer range within the main

and northeast study areas, beginning each year in April and ending in mid-December.

During winter, deer and elk are baited with alfalfa hay and pellets to the winter area

(fig. 3). Animals not responding to bait trails are either live-trapped and hauled by

truck to the winter area, fed in place within the main and northeast areas, or left to

forage on natural vegetation from mid-December to April.

At the winter area, deer and elk are fed daily and handled periodically (fig. 4) from

late December to April to meet objectives of the four summer range studies (Thomas

1989). Animals are fed high-quality alfalfa (fig. 5) at high rates to maintain healthy

body condition and minimize the variable effects of winter weather on animal condition. Consequently, measures of herd productivity can be attributed to summer

habitat conditions within the main and northeast study areas and are not confounded

by effects of winter weather (Thomas 1989).

Additional studies already begun (appendix l), or now planned,2 rely on tame elk.

These elk are raised at a calf-rearing facility within the winter area (figs. 3 and 4).

There, elk calves are reared so that they can be handled and fed easily, efficiently,

and with minimal stress. The tame calves are being used to evaluate relations of forest cover and energetics of elk, at a study site outside the Starkey fence on corporate

timber lands. The decision to conduct the study elsewhere was made because unsuitable forest cover conditions are found within the Starkey fence (appendix 1). Additional tame elk are cared for year-round at the winter area and may be used for future research at Starkey (see footnote 2).

Regulations published by APHIS (USDA APHIS 1989) require documentation that research under jurisdiction of the Animal Welfare Act not be “needlessly duplicative” of

past studies. Thomas (1989), Irwin and others3 Johnson and others (1991), and

Wisdom (1992) thoroughly describe the unique nature of the Starkey research, and in

doing so, document the need for it and the lack of duplication with previous studies.

‘Vavra, M.; DelCurto, Tim; Bryant, L. 1992. Comparative dry

matter intake, diet quality, digestion and digestion kinetics of

elk, mule deer and cattle on a Blue Mountain summer range.

3 p. Draft research proposal. On file with: Pacific Northwest

Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory,

1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

3 Irwin, L.L.; Thomas, J.W.; Cook, J.G. 1990. Influence of

thermal cover on weight dynamics and condition of elk: plans

for winter and summer studies. 43 p. Unpublished

manuscript. On file with: Pacific Northwest Research Station,

Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler

Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.
I

N

CUfWUf ru f7utihea.9

study area >

BEAR PASTURE

BARN PASTURE

SOUTH PASTUR

i

CAMPBELL

FLAT PASTURE

Figure 3-Pastures and facilities within the 805-acre winter feeding and handling area
L oadng chute

\

Reawefypens +

/

-

ffo/umgpen 6

Ho/dbgpen 3

Ho/dhg,oen 5 -A

Figure 4-Holding pens and chutes at the elk handling facility allow efficient, safe movement and processing of animals.

5
Figure 5-Wtnter range is not present within the Starkey

enclosure; elk and deer are fed each winter to maintain

uniform health and provide experimental control over

winter conditions.

Animal Welfare

Act of 1985

Passed by Congress in 1966 and amended in 1970, 1976, and 1985, the Animal Welfare Act (U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. 1985) protects the welfare of animals not reared

for either food or fiber. The law specifically addresses the care and handling of mammals that are bought and sold, exhibited to the public, transported commercially, or

used in research (USDA APHIS 1991). Invertebrates, cold-blooded vertebrates, birds,

domestic rats and mice, and animals raised for food and fiber are exempt. Also exempt are animals used for breeding, management, production efficiency, or for improving animal nutrition (USDA APHIS 1991). Garbe and Wywialowski (1991) provide

additional details about the Animal Welfare Act, its potential applications, and its

administration by APHIS.

Research Activities

Covered or Exempted

by Law

The Animal Welfare Act and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) standards for its

implementation (USDA APHIS 1989; U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. 1985) do not apply to

normal management activities routinely performed by resource agencies (USDA

APHIS 1989). Also exempt is any field study (research) “conducted on free-living wild

animals in their natural habitat, which does not involve an invasive procedure, and

which does not harm or materially alter the behavior of the animals under study”

(USDA APHIS 1989).

Invasive procedures, however, have not been defined by APHIS, nor has APHIS defined what activities may harm or materially alter the behavior of regulated animals.4

Dr. Malaby (see footnote 4) believes such definitions will be developed. Until then, he

recommends that any contact with wild mammals, for research that involves livetrapping, physical handling, immobilization, containment, or transport, be considered

as having potential to harm or materially alter animal behavior. For field studies of

wildlife, this includes all research techniques listed in table 1.

4 Personal communication. 1991. Homer Malaby, DVM,

Animal Care Specialist, USDA Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, Regulatory Enforcement and Animal

Care, Western Sector-Animal Care, 9580 Micron Avenue,

Suite J, Sacramento,-CA 95927.
Table l-Research techniques that are potentially invasive to wild mammals or

that have potential to materially or harmfully alter the behavior of wild mammals

under CFR standards of the Animal Welfare Acta

Techniques

Transmitter, transponder implants for

radio telemetry

Catheterization

Marking techniques:

Toe clipping

Branding

Ear-notching, tagging

Biological markers

Fluorescent powders

Use of dyes

Banding

Organ biopsies

Skin biopsies, scrapings

Swabbing of body orifices

Field sacrifice

Ultrasound reading

Externally applied telemetry harnesses

Capture/recapture

Oral vaccination

Blood sampling

Marrow-extracts

Laparotomy

Time-release drug implants

Endoscopy

Rectal palpation

Drug injections:

Sedatives

lmmobilizers

Other drugs that alter awareness and

reaction time of animals

Amputation of limbs

Toxicant testing:

Predator/species control

Chemical trials

Radiography

Fluoroscopy

Routine capture and measurements:

Weights

Age/sex (hair clipping, tooth extraction)

Size

a APHIS has not identified specific techniques that are invasive or that could alter animal behavior under

their regulations. Consequently, this list is unofficial. Depending on the level of care and safeguards used,

any of these common techniques have potential to materially or harmfully alter animal behavior, or to be

invasive, or both.

7
Depending on the level of care and safeguards used, any of these common techniques have potential to materially or harmfully alter animal behavior, or to be

invasive.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identified specific wildlife research techniques considered invasive or noninvasive under the Animal Welfare Act5 They also

identified techniques that do or do not materially or harmfully alter animal behavior

under CFR standards (see footnote 5). These guidelines were developed originally to

help monitor compliance of Federally funded state research projects. The guidelines,

however, have been deferred from inclusion in USFWS policy and manuals for several reasons.

Legal Requirements

and Process

One reason is that the USFWS is not the regulatory agency for the Animal Welfare

Act; therefore, it does not monitor compliance or ask for compliance reports from

Federally aided research projects. Rather, it depends on APHIS for information on

any Federally aided research that is not in compliance; Federal funds are withdrawn

until the project complies.

Any wildlife research subject to jurisdiction of the Animal Welfare Act (U.S. Laws,

Statutes, etc. 1985) and CFR standards for its implementation (USDA APHIS 1989)

must demonstrate compliance with legal requirements by adhering to the following

process. This process, as described here, is quoted from a summary by USFWS

(see footnote 5); it accurately describes major requirements for compliance that are

outlined in 51 pages of standards issued by APHIS (USDA APHIS 1989) regarding

research on wild mammals and other regulated animals.

Registration: Each non-Federal research facility or organization will register

with APHIS, Regulatory Enforcement and Animal Care Sector supervisor in the

State where research activities occur, by filing a form supplied by APHIS. This

registration form will be signed by an individual with legal authority to bind the

organization and will be updated every 3 years.

Review of Activities: The head of each registered and Federal facility will

appoint a standing Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)

charged with carrying out the intent of the rules for the institution. Each IACUC

will consist of at least three individuals, one of whom is a Doctor of Veterinary

Medicine; and one of whom is not affiliated in any way with the facility, but

represents general community interest. IACUC is an agent of the facility and

performs the following major functions:

1. Review the facilities and care given all captive species every 6 months.

Report significant deficiencies (those which are a threat to health and safety

of animals) along with a specific schedule and plan for correction to the head

of the facility. Report uncorrected deficiencies to APHIS or the agency fifteen

working days after the scheduled correction date.

5 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

1990. Draft requirements of wildlife research facilities and

organizations, 1989 Animal Welfare Act rules. 5 p. On file

with: U.S. Department of the interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Federal Aid Program, Arlington Square, 4401 N.

Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.

6 Personal communication. 1991. Tom Williams, Federal Aid

Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, 911 N.E. 11 th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232.
2. Review public or in-house concerns voiced about care and use of animals by

facility personnel.

3. Make recommendations to the facility head regarding use of animals,

facilities, and necessary staff training.

4. Review and approve, require modification to, or deny animal care and use

procedures proposed in facility research projects. This approval must be

gained before project initiation. IACUC may also review ongoing procedures

and can suspend animal use activities if not in accordance with procedures

submitted before project initiation. If an activity is suspended the head of the

facility will review the reasons, take corrective actions, and report those

actions to APHIS or the Federal agency involved.

IACUC review of research animal use will focus on the following areas: Alternatives to the use of animals, minimization of pain and distress in research

animals, avoiding the use of animals in needlessly duplicative projects, use of

appropriate pain-relieving drugs in consultation with a veterinarian, and appropriate methods of euthanasia. IACUC may use appropriate consultants in

reviewing technical procedures, and may delegate review of animal use procedures to one of their members, if no member of the IACUC requests full IACUC

review. Only IACUC members may vote on approval of any procedure. Researchers must be given opportunity to further explain and support procedures

not initially approved by the IACUC. Procedures denied by IACUC cannot be

approved by other facility officials.

Other institutional responsibilities include:

1. Provision of adequate training and credential review for personnel involved in

animal use at the facility in order to ensure they can perform required tasks

and know the proper procedures for questioning or reporting suspected care

and use deficiencies.

2. Assurance that the veterinarian attending IACUC meetings provides an

adequate veterinary care program for all species used at the facility.

Record-Keeping and Reporting: Each IACUC will maintain the following

records for three years after the duration of activities and have them available to APHIS or agency personnel upon request:

1. Minutes of IACUC meetings.

2. Records of proposed animal use and IACUC’s action on each.

3. Facility reviews with summary reports.

Annually, each registered institution or agency will report to APHIS:

1. Assurances that adequate veterinary care, consideration of alternatives to the

use of animals in research, and adherence to the Animal Welfare Act rules

are occurring at the facility.

2. The location of each site holding animals, and the species and number of

animals used in research and teaching in the following categories:

(a) Involving no pain or distress;

(b) Involving pain or distress with alleviation;

(c) Involving pain or distress with no alleviation.
Registration of

Research Facilities

Exempt Institutions

3. The number and species of animals being held or bred for future use in

research, experimentation or teaching.

Each instance in 2(c) must be accompanied by an explanation justifying

procedures Scientifically.

Any institution using live mammals for research, testing, teaching, or experimentation

must register with APHIS. Registration is mandatory if the institution includes regulated animals and any of the following activities, as stated by USDA APHIS (1991):

. Investigations on animal propagation and control, such as wildlife ecology.

. Laboratory tests, including pregnancy tests, allergy tests, and other

diagnostic procedures.

. Quality control studies, such as studies on the safety, effectiveness,

durability, or other quality tests of commercial products.

. College instruction, whether for research, education, or to improve medical

treatment techniques and methods.

. Professional continuing education courses.

The APHIS guidelines further state the following:

Registration is required to assure that laboratory animals are provided with care

and comfort meeting USDA standards. The law and regulations require the use

of appropriate pain-relieving drugs whenever possible. Registered research facilities and all agencies of the Federal government must submit an annual report

stating how many regulated animals were used and if any painful experiments

were conducted. The report must include a list of pain-relieving drugs or an explanation as to why it was necessary to omit pain relief.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, APHIS (1991), states that Federal institutions

“are not required to register with USDA and are not inspected by APHIS, but each

Federal agency is responsible for complying with all USDA standards of animal care

and for submitting an annual report to USDA on the use of regulated laboratory animals.” The Starkey studies are conducted through the Pacific Northwest Research

Station of the Forest Service. As a Federal institution, this agency is exempt from

registration and inspection.

Public institutions administered or funded by state or local government must register

with APHIS as research facilities, however, as do private institutions (USDA APHIS

1991). If private institutions (privately owned facilities on privately owned land) receive

partial funding from the Federal government or jointly conduct research with Federal

researchers, private institutions must still register with APHIS (see footnote 4).

State wildlife agencies receiving research funds from Federal aid programs, such as

Pittman-Robertson, also must register their research facilities with APHIS, unless

such research is conducted jointly with Federal agencies at a Federal facility or unless

such research involves only field studies (see footnote 4). If research is conducted at

a Federal facility, state wildlife agencies must follow the same procedures that apply

to Federal agencies. Annual reports and other compliance work are then done jointly

with and through Federal research partners working with APHIS. The same applies to

IO
Care and handling

private companies conducting research at Federal facilities in conjunction with Federal

partners (see footnote 4). The ODFW research at Starkey is conducted jointly with the

FS; therefore, it is exempt from registration and inspection by APHIS, but the State

agency does submit joint annual reports with the FS.

Specific protocols used for care and handling of deer and elk in research a? !he

Starkey Experimental Forest and Range are described below. Additional protocols for

care and handling of tame elk used in the forest cover-elk energetics study are

described in appendix 1. A specificprogram of veterinary care for tame elk used in

both studies has been established.

The forest cover-elk energetics studies and those at Starkey will use the same IACUC

because the studies are subject to the same requirements for compliance with APHIS

regulations (USDA APHIS 1991), and they use similar methods of handling and care

of tame elk. Both research sites will be inspected during courtesy visits by APHIS

personnel, and Starkey Project and NCASI researchers will submit joint reports and

other required information to APHIS.

Assumptions

Protocols described here will be updated whenever deemed appropriate by the

IACUC and by researchers working in coordination with the committee. Proposed research will also be reviewed by the IACUC, and approved protocols will be appended

to this document. As mentioned earlier, research for which protocols are described

here is not duplicative of previous studies and therefore is allowed under APHIS regulations (USDA APHIS 1989).

1. Deer and elk residing in the northeast and main study areas of Starkey (fig. 1) during the research field season-April through December of each year-are considered wild, free-living animals in their natural habitat as defined under “Field

Studies” of CFR standards of the Animal Welfare Act (USDA APHIS 1989).

The reasons are twofold: these study areas (fig. 1) encompass areas equal to or larger than the summer home ranges of most deer and elk living under free-ranging conditions in northeast Oregon (Leckenby 1984, Pedersen 1985), and habitat conditions

within these areas are representative of those available to deer and elk residing on

summer ranges throughout northeast Oregon (Leckenby 1984, Pedersen 1985). Accordingly, deer and elk have the same choices of space, food, water, and other habitat components in these areas as do other free-ranging herds in northeast Oregon.

The only difference is the use of technologies to monitor animal selection of available

habitats within the Starkey enclosure (Thomas 1989).

2. All human activities that occur as part of resource management of the northeast

and main study areas from April through December each year are exempt from

CFR standards of the Animal Welfare Act (USDA APHIS 1989). Such activities

include, but are not limited to, cattle grazing and all range management practices;

road and timber management activities; motorized vehicle use and its regulation;

camping, mushroom-picking, hiking, hunting, photography, bike and horseback riding; and other recreational activities normally allowed on National Forests. Firewood gathering is not allowed on the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range.

‘U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Care. 1991.

Program of veterinary care for tame elk used for Starkey

and forest cover-elk energetics studies. 6 p. Unpublished.

On file with: Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry

and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane,

La Grande, OR 97850.

11
These activities are normal procedures used by state and Federal agencies to manage natural resources, including wildlife, on nearly all allocations of Federal land, including research areas. They are therefore exempt (USDA APHIS 1989, 1991) and

also do not qualify as specific research techniques under the CFR definition of “Field

Studies” (USDA APHIS 1989, appendix 2). Deer and elk in the northeast and main

study areas have many habitats to select from in response to human disturbances,

no different than the habitat choices available to other free-ranging herds in northeast

Oregon (see assumption 1).

3. Human activities that occur directly as part of research of deer and elk in the northeast and main study areas from April through December are subject to jurisdiction

of the Animal Welfare Act and its regulations if such research activities have the

potential to be physically invasive to animals or to harm or materially alter the behavior of animals under study.

This assumption is in accordance with CFR standards that apply to “Field Studies” of

wildlife in their natural habitat (USDA APHIS 1989). Included are all research techniques listed in table 1. Also included are physical handling, immobilization or containment in live traps or squeeze chutes, and transportation of animals. Appropriate, humane treatment of animals under these conditions is part of the protocols in this

report.

4. Human activities that occur as part of either resource management or researchas identified under assumptions 3 and 4-in the northeast and main study areas

from January through March are subject to jurisdiction of the Animal Welfare Act.

There are two reasons: (1) habitat in the northeast and main study areas, from

January through March (outside the research field season), does not contain adequate space, habitat components, or sufficiently mild weather to constitute selfsustaining winter range for deer and elk-like that found on typical winter ranges in

northeast Oregon; and (2) animals cannot freely move to such winter ranges other

than to an artificial one established at the winter area (fig. 3). Consequently, all

aspects of care and handling of deer and elk residing in these study areas from

January through March are detailed in our protocols. These include a list of safeguards that minimize human activities and disturbances to animals during that period.

5. All human activities, for either management or research, taking place year-round at

the winter area are subject to the jurisdiction of the Animal Welfare Act and therefore are addressed in our protocols.

Deer and elk in the winter feeding and handling area are not living under free-ranging

conditions that provide adequate food or space to maintain animal health without

intensive, supplementary care by humans. Also, the winter area falls under the legal

definition of “primary enclosure“ as specified in CFR standards (appendix 2, USDA

APHIS 1989). Any animals living in areas defined as primary enclosures are subject

to CFR standards of the Animal Welfare Act.

6. Given these assumptions, all human activities subject to jurisdiction of the Animal

Welfare Act and CFR standards are summarized for each area of the Starkey enclosure by season (table 2). This list includes all present or planned activities that

may fall under jurisdiction of the Animal Welfare Act. Additional research techniques not listed but potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the law, like many of

those in table 1, are not addressed because no plans exist for their use. Protocols

will be developed for such techniques if and before they are used.

1 2
Table P-Human activities at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range that

are potentially subject to CFR standards of the Animal Welfare Act

Area and time activity is subject to CFR standards

Activity

NE and main NE and main

study areas, study areas,

April-December January-March

Winter feeding and

handling area,

year-round

Public and resource

management

activitiesa

Live-trapping deer

with panel traps

Live-trapping deer

with drive or drop

nets

Live-trapping deer

with net guns

Capturing deer with

chemical anesthesia

Handling deer to

collect data

Transporting deer

Live-trapping elk with

portable traps

Capturing elk with

chemical anesthesia

Collecting data from

elk outside the

handling facility

Collecting data from elk

at the handling

facility

Transporting elk

Baiting animals to the

winter area

Live-trapping and

transporting animals

to winter area

Winter feeding in

study areas

Pasture management,

winter area

Releasing animals

from winter area in

spring

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

13
s at the Starkey Experimental est and Range that

CFR standards of the Animal

Area and time activity is subject to CFR standards

NE and main NE and main Winter feeding and

study areas, study areas, handling area,

Activity April-December January-March year-round

Care of animals living

year-round at winter

area X

Operative procedures

(swsv) X X X

Care of tame elk X X X

Pain alleviation and

euthanasia X X X

Monitoring the

welfare of animals X X X

Training personnel X X X

a Includes, but is not limited to cattle grazing and all range management practices; road and timber

management activities; motorized vehicle use and its regulation; camping, mushroom picking, hiking,

hunting, photography, bike and horseback riding; and other recreational activities normally allowed on

National Forests, Firewood cutting is prohibited.

Protocols for Public and . Close the northeast and main study areas to all public access from about midDecember to mid-April each year to minimize human disturbance to those animals

Activities remaining in the study areas. Allow public entry into the study areas only with permission of or when accompanied by research personnel.

. Do not allow routine resource management activities within the northeast and

main study areas from January through March to minimize human disturbance of

wintering animals. Exceptions are care, feeding, and handling of animals, and

maintaining facilities and equipment (for example, telemetry equipment and

fences). Prohibited activities include all recreation and public access and all forms

of timber and range management. Activities allowed are those for which protocols

have been developed in this document.

. Each winter, attempt to lure, or live-trap and transport, as many deer and elk as

possible to the winter area; this is where direct, active care of wintering animals is

easiest. See protocols for baiting, live-trapping, and transport of animals.

. Prohibit public entry into the winter area year-round. Allow public entry only with

permission from or when accompanied by research personnel.

1 4
Protocols for

Handling Deer

. Limit resource management activities that occur in the winter area year-round. Exceptions are activities necessary to improve or maintain the humane, safe, and

healthy care of animals. Included are timber and range practices to improve condition of pastures; all feeding and handling of animals and use of support machinery, technologies, and facilities; and repair and maintenance of facilities and technologies. Protocols for allowed activities are outlined in the sections that follow.

Live-trapping deer with panel traps-These traps are well suited to capture and

hold single deer safely for extended periods (fig. 6). They are designed and function

like a Clover’ single-gate deer trap (Day and others 1980, p. 67-68), except that they

are triangular instead of rectangular. The trap has two wooden sides, each 8 feet high

and 5 feet wide, joined together at a 45’ angle to form a “V” at the back. The entrance, or open end, is covered with mesh netting that completes the triangle. Deer

are lured into the entrance with salt, alfalfa hay, pellets, or other baits located near a

trip cord. Feeding on the bait triggers closure of the net gate. The triangular, narrow

design of the trap restricts deer mobility sufficiently to prevent injury, yet is large

enough for deer to stand or lie comfortably. The wooden sides are constructed of

l- by 6-inch slats, spaced 1 inch apart to maintain air fiow through the trap.

Protocoi-

.

* Do not set traps under severe weather or microclimatic conditions that could

cause heat or cold stress to animals. In summer, refrain from setting traps when

trapped animals may experience direct solar radiation combined with ambient air

temperatures above 80 OF. During summer and winter, set traps away from openings and wind-swept ridges. Place traps instead in forest stands to modify extremes in microclimate around the traps and thus minimize any harmful effects of

weather on trapped deer.

. Check traps at least daily. Make sure traps are not inadvertently set (that is, net

gate open and trigger set) when traps are not being checked.

. Use two capable and trained personnel to remove deer from traps. Remove deer

safely by pressing deer into the narrow portion of the trap. Grasp the front legs by

reaching around the deer’s body and then pull the front legs toward the rear of

the animal. (Pulling the front legs this way restricts the deer from rising up on its

front legs). At the same time, the second handler enters the trap and grasps the

hindlegs. Once the legs are restrained, place the animal on its side within the

trap. Then, keeping the back partially bowed to prevent spinal injury, gently slide

the deer out of the trap. Blindfold the animal to keep it calm and begin collecting

data (fig. 7). Have one person maintain gentle but firm pressure on top of the

animal’s midsection while data are collected. See “Handling deer to collect data”

for the appropriate protocol for sampling and processing of captured animals.

‘The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for

reader information and does not imply endorsement by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service.

15
F:igul r e 6- -Pal iel trap US6!d to catch

Live-trapping deer with drive or drop nets-Deer are captured with drive nets by

setting 50-foot sections of nylon rope netting, about 6 feet high and perpendicular to

and touching the ground, across an area into which deer are driven. See Day and

others (1980, p. 68-69) for details about setup and design. The same or similar nets

can be dropped over deer by releasing nets suspended on poles or posts 6 feet or

higher above the ground. Deer are attracted to the area with various baits and are

captured when researchers electrically trigger the release of nets from the poles.

ProtocoL-

. Set up nets in an area free of potential hazards to deer. Make sure the area is

free of large rocks and other protrusions that may injure entangled deer. For drive

netting, select an area that requires herding deer a relatively short distance (usually less than 200 yards) and that affords deer few choices for escape (for example, avoid areas of dense cover and steep relief). These safeguards will minimize energy loss and potential stress to animals by minimizing the time that deer

are driven toward nets and the time they are entangled.

. Use at least four research personnel for drive- or drop-netting; use only personnel

who are capable and trained to drive and handle deer with maximum care and

safety. For drive-netting, herd deer in the direction of nets either on foot, with allterrain vehicles, or with a helicopter.

. Approach each entangled deer immediately; physically immobilize the animal by

gently but firmly placing and holding the animal on the ground in a position that

allows the animal to lie comfortably on its side. The head should be elevated to

avoid aspiration of rumen contents. With at least one crew member keeping the

animal immobilized, untangle the deer from the net as quickly as possible and

place a blindfold over the animal’s head. Use one person to keep the animal immobilized while other crew members begin sampling and processing techniques.

See “Handling deer to collect data” for the appropriate protocol at this stage.

16
Figure 7-After a mule deer is captured, it is

the panel trap, blindfolded, and held securely

while being processed.

removed from

r and safely

Live-trapping deer with net guns-This technique involves shooting a riflemounted net over the top of a deer within a target range of 50 feet (Day and others

1980, p. 69).

Proto&-Use at least two capable and trained research personnel to live-trap deer

with a net gun. Have one person carry the equipment needed to sample and process

the netted deer while the other person shoots.

To minimize chasing and harassment of animals, shoot the net only when the deer is

within range (50 feet or less), in an area where the net will fully immobilize a deer

quickly, and where a partially immobilized deer has little chance of escape (for example, running into a deep canyon or into dense cover).

Once the deer is netted, one person should keep the deer immobilized and lying on

its side while the other person untangles the animal. Immediately place a blindfold on

the animal’s head to keep it calm. Begin sampling and processing techniques with

one person making sure the animal remains immobilized and lying comfortably on its

side. See “Handling deer to collect data” for protocols for sampling and processing of

the captured animal.

Capturing deer by using chemical anesthesia-A syringe dart filled with anesthetic

is shot from a rifle, blowgun, or pistol, or anesthetic is injected by hand with a syringe

or jabstick (Day and others 1980, pp. 69-71; Fowler 1989, pp. 36-40). With

successful penetration of the syringe in the animal’s hide, the deer is fully

anesthetized in less than 10 minutes. Because anesthetic is used, the animal is not

aware of being handled during immobilization, thus reducing stress.

Protocol-

. Use analgesics or anesthetics only when such chemicals are judged to help

reduce stress, prevent pain, and increase the safety of the animals being

handled or of the project personnel. Use physical restraint (as described

elsewhere) without analgesics, anesthetics, or tranquilizers when such chemicals

are judged to increase the potential for stress or mortality or both. Often, the use

of such chemicals on wild animals significantly increases the time of animal

handling and confinement, and thus may increase physiological stress. Also, wild

1 7
.

animals that are highly excited react unpredictably to various anesthetics and

dosages, thereby increasing the probability of physiological stress or a fatal

reaction. The decision to use or not use anesthetics and other chemicals is the

judgment of the researchers and their assessment of the particular conditions

under which animals are being handled. The California Department of Fish and

Game (1992:1-l) described the situation aptly:

After developing chemical immobilization techniques for most of California’s

wildlife species, California Fish and Game (DFG) personnel realized that

chemical immobilization was not a panacea for all wildlife capture and restraint. Many times, it was actually safer, efficient, and less stressful to the

animal and the biologist to use some form of physical capture and restraint.

Allow research personnel that have been trained and certified by ODFW or a

qualified veterinarian to use chemical anesthesia. Have authorized ODFW

personnel and the Starkey attending veterinarian (or other qualified veterinarian)

train other research personnel in all aspects of chemical anesthesia. This includes

training in rifle and gun ballistics (for example, trajectory and velocity) to ensure

that darts hit the correct body location with the correct impact so that deer are

immobilized quickly, humanely, and with little or no tissue damage. This also

includes training in proper drug dosage, knowledge of the reaction of the animal,

and proper first aid and care of the anesthetized animal. . Use drugs that contain analgesics for pain relief, such as xylazine (for example,

Rompun, Bay 1470) or combinations of xylazine and ketamine hydrochloride (for

example, Vetalar, Ketalar, Ketaset). The preferred drug is Capture-All 5, a combination of Rompun and ketamine, used in the manner prescribed by Jessup and

others (1983, 1985) and California Department of Fish and Game (1992). Use

yohimbine hydrochloride to reverse the immobilizing effect of Capture-All 5 once

the animal is ready to be released (Jessup and others 1983, 1985). . Minimize use of immobilizing drugs not providing an anesthetic effect, such as

succinylcholine chloride. Unlike anesthetics, such drugs allow the animal to be

fully conscious during the handling process, with potentially stressful physiological effects (California Department of Fish and Game 1992). Follow dosage

charts and methods prescribed by the California Department of Fish and Game

(1992) for drug injections. See Fowler (1989, pp. 44-52) for detailed information

about the physiological effects of chemical immobilizers commonly used to

restrain animals. . Follow procedures described by the California Department of Fish and Game

(1992) to monitor the medical condition of anesthetized animals. This includes

monitoring respiration, pulse, color of mucous membranes, response to auditory

and visual stimuli, and body temperature. Make sure the animal is comfortable in

body position, not subjected to extremes in ambient temperature, not under undue

physical restraint, and that sensitive areas such as eyes are covered and protected while the animal is sedated. While handling, check the animal carefully for

all signs of physical health (California Department of Fish and Game 1992), and

administer appropriate antibiotics or other drugs to treat wounds, infections, or

other unhealthy symptoms.

. See “Handling deer to collect data” for detailed protocols for sampling and processing a captured animal.

1 8
Handling deer to collect dataProtocol--

Once the deer is captured, immobilized, and lying on its side comfortably, blindfold the animal to keep it calm. If anesthetic has not been administered and only

two people are processing the animal, use restraining boards to keep the animal

safely immobilized. If anesthetic has been administered or three or more people

are helping process the animal, have two people maintain gentle but firm pressure on top of the animal’s mid-section. Use at least two trained personnel to coilect data: one person to monitor the condition of the animal, as described by

California Department of Fish and Game (1992), and a second person to sample

and process the animal.

Limit the time of restraint and handling to no more than 30 minutes. Minimize talking and keep voices quiet during handling to reduce the likelihood of a stressful

reaction. If, at any time, the animal shows visible signs of stress (for example,

hyperventilating or a rise in body temperature above 106 OF), either release the

animal immediately or apply cool water over the animal’s body, especially on the

inside of the pelvis, around the neck, and under the stomach; administer vitamin

B and selenium to reduce capture myopathy.

Determine sex and age of the animal, and attach a numbered, aluminum ear tag

to each ear with ear tag pliers. If the animal already has ear tags, record the

number(s).

Draw blood from the animal (if needed to meet research objectives) by inserting

a 1 -inch needle into a major artery or jugular vein in the animal’s neck and withdrawing up to 20 milliliters of blood. Blood may be used to check for diseases and

pregnancy and to monitor other parameters of physical health.

If necessary for research, place a plastic identification or radio collar (Pedersen

1977) around the neck of the animal, ensuring a proper fit. Deer collars weigh no

more than 3-l/2 pounds. This weight and the configuration of collars allow them

to fit comfortably, safely, and humanely on deer without significantly altering their

behavior. If the animal is already carrying a collar, check for signs of improper

wear on the animal’s neck. If found, remove the collar and administer topical

antibiotics or other healing agents to bare skin or surface wounds.

Check the animal for existing wounds or injuries, or those that could have

resulted from handling. Administer topical antibiotics or other appropriate agents

to surface wounds, and inject antibiotics if needed. If injuries are more serious,

transport the animal to a veterinarian. See protocols for transporting deer. If the

animal has injuries that appear fatal, euthanize the animal, following protocols

outlined under “Pain alleviation and euthanasia.”

Weigh the animal by placing it in a wooden, enclosed box built specifically for

holding and transporting deer. These boxes are about 42 inches tall, 22 inches

wide, and 56 inches long, with ventilation holes on all sides and removable doors.

Place the box on the weight scale, record the total weight, and subtract the

weight of the box to obtain the animal’s weight. Release the animal immediately

in a safe location, or place the boxed animal on a truck if it is to be transported

elsewhere (fig. 8).

19
Figure 8-Transporting deer in wooden boxes to the winter feeding

and handling area. Note ventilation holes in sides of boxes.

Protocols for

Handling Elk

Transporting deerProfocoL

. Use only wooden, enclosed deer boxes (described above) to transport deer.

These boxes ar+ large enough for deer to lie comfortably, but small enough to

limit movement that could cause injury or stress. The wooden sides also provide

darkness, in which deer remain calm. A series of 2-l/2-inch-diameter holes,

6 inches apart across the long sides of each box, provide sufficient airflow to

prevent heat stress and provide adequate ventilation for animals in transit. The

boxes meet all specifications for safe and humane transport of a wild ungulate,

as described by Fowler (1989, p. 242).

. When lifting, moving, or transporting boxes, keep them level with the ground to

prevent deer from being pushed to one end of the box and becoming excited and

potentially stressed.

l When releasing a deer from the box, monitor its initial movements to confirm that

it has not been injured in transit or during handling. If the animal limps, moves

listlessly, or shows other signs of injury, try to recapture it for examination by a

veterinarian.

Live-trapping elk with portable traps-A portable corral and a squeeze chute (Day

and others 1980, pp. 66-67) may be used to capture and immobilize elk (fig. 9). The

corral, made of steel bars or wood, encloses about 20 by 30 feet. A squeeze chute is

connected to the corral. Animals are baited with alfalfa hay, pellets, or other attractants into the corral and trigger the closure of the entrance gate while feeding on the

bait. Animals are moved singly into the squeeze chute to be handled and measured.

Profocob-

. Do not set traps under severe weather or microclimate conditions that could

cause heat or cold stress to captured animals. Set traps away from openings (that

is, in forest stands) to help modify extremes in microclimate around the traps,

thus minimizing harmful effects of weather on trapped elk.

. Check traps at least daily. Make sure traps are not inadvertently set (that is, gate

open and trigger set) when trapping is completed.

2 0
Figure Q-A portable corral trap, sometimes used to capture elk in the

main and northeast study areas.

. During winter, de-antler branch-antlered bull elk before they are handled in the

squeeze chute. This will lessen injuries to both animals and researchers and

allow researchers to treat bulls as humanely and safely as possible during processing in the squeeze chute. During winter, antlers are nonliving material; they

are shed annually in late winter or early spring. Consequently, removal of antlers

during winter poses minimal risk to the health or safety of bull elk.

. To de-antler, drop a lasso over the animal’s antlers while it is inside the corral or

pen. Then quickly tie the free end of the lasso to a corral post so that the antlers

are pulled snug against the fencing; the bull should not be able to move its antlers. Avoid cinching the antlers too snugly against the post; this could stress the

bull and increase the likelihood of injury. Once the antlers are snug, quickly saw

them off above the pedicles. If any jagged edges protrude above the pedicles

after sawing, file the edges down so that the area above the pedicles is smooth;

this is done later when the elk is in a chute in the handling facility. Use at least

two trained and physically capable research personnel to lasso and secure the

antlers for removal.

Capturing elk with chemical anesthesia-As with deer, this technique involves

shooting a syringe dart filled with anesthetic from a rifle, blow-gun, or pistol, or

injecting by hand with a syringe or jab-stick (Day and others 1980, pp. 69-71; Fowler

1989, pp. 36-40). With successful penetration, an elk is fully anesthetized in less than

10 minutes. Anesthetic and analgesic are used as part of the immobilizing agent.

Consequently, the animal feels little if any pain and is not acutely aware of being

handled while immobilized. Because new and safer drugs are continually being

developed, researchers will use new drugs or new combinations of established drugs

whenever such drugs are judged safer, more effective, or more humane than drugs

previously available.

ProtocoL-

. Use analgesics or anesthetics only when such chemicals are judged to help reduce stress, prevent pain, and increase the safety of the animals being handled

or of project personnel. See “Capturing deer by using chemical anesthesia” for

further details.

21
. Allow research personnel that have been trained and certified by ODFW or a

qualified veterinarian to use chemical darts to immobilize elk. Have authorized

ODFW personnel and the Starkey attending veterinarian (or other qualified veterinarian) train other personnel in all aspects of chemical anesthesia. This includes

training in gun and rifle ballistics (for example, trajectory and velocity); this will ensure that darts hit the correct body location with the correct impact so that animals are immobilized quickly, humanely, and with little tissue damage. This also

includes training in proper drug dosage, knowledge of the reactions of the animal,

and proper first aid and care of the anesthetized animal.

. Follow all rules and guidelines of the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) that

govern the use and administration of drugs to capture and immobilize deer and

elk. Make sure the rules and guidelines pertaining to each drug are included in

employee training sessions.

* Use drugs that contain analgesics, such as xylazine (Rompun, Bay 1470) or combinations of xylazine and ketamine hydrochloride (Vetalar, Ketalar, Ketaset). Preferably, use a combination of Rompun and ketamine, such as Capture-All 5, as

prescribed by Jessup and others (1983, 1985) and California Department of Fish

and Game (1992). Use yohimbine hydrochloride to reverse the immobilizing effect

when the animal has been processed and is ready for release.

. Consider using more efficient and effective drugs as they become’available, such

as combinations of medetomidine and ketamine.g Allow such drugs to be tested

at Starkey with FDA permission and monitoring. Allow the use of carfentanil citrate when xylazine and medetomidine would not be effective, such as when darting a running or highly excited animal.

. Minimize use of immobilizing drugs not providing anesthetic effect, such as succinylcholine chloride. Unlike anesthetics, such drugs allow the animal to be fully

conscious during the handling process, with potentially stressful physiological effects (California Department of Fish and Game 1992). Follow dosage charts and

methods prescribed by California Department of Fish and Game (1992) for administering drugs. See Fowler (1989, pp. 44-52) for detailed information about the

physiological effects of chemical immobilizers commonly used to restrain animals.

. Follow procedures of the California Department of Fish and Game (1992) to monitor the medical condition of anesthetized animals. This includes monitoring

respiration, pulse, color of mucous membranes, response to auditory and visual

stimuli, and body temperature. Make sure the animal is comfortable in body position, not subjected to extremes in ambient temperature, not under undue physical

restraint, and that sensitive areas such as eyes are covered and protected. While

handling, check the animal carefully for all signs of physical health (California Department of Fish and Game 1992), and administer appropriate antibiotics or other

drugs to treat wounds, infections, or other unhealthy symptoms.

l See protocols for collecting data from elk for details about handling and processing a captured animal.

’ Lance, William R. 1992. Letter dated April 7 to Jim Noyes.

On file with: M. Wisdom, Forestry and Range Sciences

Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

2 2
Collecting data from elk outside the handling facility-Most elk will be handled at

the elk handling facility inside the winter area (figs. 3 and 4). At times, however, data

will be collected from elk captured in portable corral traps set up throughout the study

areas (figs. 1 and 9). These elk will be handled on-site by using a squeeze chute connected to the corral (Day and others 1980, pp. 66-67) and released, or they will be

trucked to the handling facility. Elk captured in portable traps also may be anesthetized and data collected inside the corral, without using the squeeze chute. Sometimes, free-ranging animals (that is, not trapped) may be captured with chemical anesthetics. See “Live-trapping elk with portable traps” for detailed protocols about

trapping.

Protocol-

* To begin collecting data, move elk singly from the corral into the squeeze chute

by using trained personnel. Have one person work the squeeze chute, keeping it

open while the animal moves into it in response to herding from other people.

. Once the elk is in the squeeze chute and immobilized, blindfold it to keep it calm

(fig. 10). Minimize the time an elk is restrained and being handled. If at any time

the animal shows visible signs of stress (for example, hyperventilating or a rise in

body temperature), either release the animal or apply cool water over the animal’s

body, especially on the inside of the pelvis, around the neck, and under the stomach; administer vitamin B and selenium to mitigate capture myopathy.

. Verify or determine sex and age of the animal, and attach a numbered, aluminum

ear tag to each ear with ear tag pliers. If the animal already has ear tags, record

their numbers.

. Draw blood from the animal, if necessary, by inserting a needle into a major artery or jugular vein in the animal’s neck and filling a 20-milliliter syringe. Blood

samples are used to check for diseases, to monitor other parameters of physical

health, and to determine pregnancy status of adult females.

Figure 1 C-Blindfolded elk in the squeeze chute of a portable

corral trap.

2 3
. If needed, place a plastic identification or radio collar (Pedersen 1977) around the

neck of the animal, making sure the collar fits properly. Elk collars weigh about

3.7 pounds. This relatively light weight and the design of the collar allow it to fit

comfortably, safely, and humanely on elk without altering their behavior. If the

animal is already carrying a collar, check for signs of improper wear on the animal’s neck. If found, remove the collar, and administer topical antibiotics or other

healing agents to bare skin or surface wounds.

. Check the animal for wounds or injuries that might have existed before handling,

or that could have resulted from handling. Administer topical antibiotics or other

appropriate agents to surface wounds, and inject the animal with antibiotics if

needed. If injuries are more serious, transport the animal to a veterinarian. See

protocols for transporting elk. If the animal has injuries that appear fatal, euthanize the animal by following protocols outlined under “Pain alleviation and

euthanasia.”

Collecting data from elk at the handling facility-The handling facility is in the winter area (fig. 3). Once elk are pastured there (see “Feeding and pasturing animals in

the winter area”), they can be moved in small numbers to pens or containment areas

adjacent to the handling facility (figs. 4 and 11). Animals can then be run through the

facility and handled quickly, safely, and humanely for data collection.

Protocol-

. To lessen heat stress, handle elk only when temperatures are below 35 OF and

preferably below 25 OF. Avoid handling in direct sunlight. The best times for

handling elk are at dawndusk, or night.

. Select a pasture in the winter area from which animals will be handled. Open the

gate that leads from the selected pasture to the “hub” (fig. 3). Over a period of 2

to 4 days, progressively move the feeding line from the pasture into the hub and

down the alley leading to the pens adjacent to the handling facility.

. When animals are habituated to feeding in the alley and pens, and handling is

scheduled to start, close the gate that connects the pasture to the hub, as well

as the gate connecting the hub with the alley (fig. 3).

. Use personnel trained and experienced in moving elk. Herd elk in the alley toward

the pens with four-wheelers, rather than with people on foot. Using these machines moves animals faster and more humanely in confined spaces, such as

the alley. Once elk start moving down the alley, the four-wheelers prevent them

from turning back. If elk are not caught in the pens after the fourth or fifth attempt,

they are left alone until the following day. Try to contain animals in a small

enough space so that they cannot pace back and forth, but without herding too

large a group to minimize injuries (fig. 11). Once animals enter the pens or containment area adjacent to the handling facility, quickly close the gates that connect the pens or containment area with the alley. Check animals for signs of

injury or heat stress. Release any animals from the pens or containment area

that appear stressed; allow these animals to return to pastures. Move injured

animals to a recovery pen for examination by a veterinarian; if injuries are minor,

treat animals and monitor their condition for at least 24 hours before release.

. In the pens, de-antler any branch-antlered bull elk that will later be handled. Use

the same protocol described earlier under “Trapping elk with portable traps.”

2 4
Figure 1 l-Elk are herded into a containment area before being

moved through the chutes inside the handling facility.

. Keep quiet while handling elk; conversations should be limited. Also, use only a

few people to handle deer or elk, usually four. People who have worked together

previously as a team will be more efficient.

. Begin handling immediately after de-antlering the bulls. From the pen or containment area, herd an animal into the outside chutes that lead to the entrance of the

handling facility (fig. 4). Move the animal through the outside chutes by closing

sliding doors behind the animal as it moves forward. Once the elk enters the

building, move the animal into the desired chute (fig. 4) by closing and opening

the appropriate sliding doors in front of and behind the animal. Handle elk in

various chutes, listed below, to collect data as elk walk through in order:

1. V-squeeze chute-After the animal enters the chute, close the sliding doors ahead

of and behind the animal. Then push the free end of the side panel inward toward

the animal, which will narrow the area around the animal to a small triangle. This

“V-squeeze” restricts the mobility of the animal, yet is safe and humane. Attach or

replace radio or identification collars and ear tags.

2. Rectal palpation chute-When a cow elk is in the chute, the opening in the rear

sliding door can be used to check for pregnancy by rectally palpating the uterus.

This technique (Follis and Spillett 1974) should be performed only by a qualified

veterinarian or by research personnel trained by the attending veterinarian of the

IACUC.

2 5
3. Weight chute-At entry, each animal steps onto a padded scale on the floor

(fig. 12). After closing the sliding doors behind the animal, record the animal’s

weight from the digital read-out modem. Once recorded, open the front door

and allow the animal to move forward.

4. Surgery preparatory chute-This chute, adjacent to the surgery room (fig. 13), is

used when injecting elk with anesthetic before surgery. The chute resembles the

V-squeeze chute. Use the same protocol outlined for chute 1 to temporarily immobilize the animal in a “V-squeeze.” Once immobilized, inject the elk with anesthetic

by using the protocols outlined under “Capturing elk with chemical anesthesia.”

When the anesthetic takes effect, open the side gate facing the surgery room and

slide the animal onto the lowered operating table (fig. 13). After the table is raised

(by hydraulic power), the animal is ready for surgery. See “Operative procedures

(surgery)” for protocols. We anticipate very few surgeries each year.

5. Powder River squeeze chute-Usually all elk are moved quickly through chute 4,

and into the Powder River squeeze chute (fig. 14). This chute, originally designed

for cattle (Fowler 1989, p. 129), has side panels of metal bars designed to gently

“collapse” against both sides of an animal to provide restraint without injury. Pressure from the bars against the animal’s body is controlled with metal levers

(fig. 14). This squeeze chute provides more control and safety for the researcher

during handling than does the V-squeeze chute. The Powder River squeeze chute

is preferred for attaching or changing ear tags and collars, drawing blood, and

taking other samples or measurements.

Before closing the squeeze chute, make sure the animal is fully inside, with its head

facing forward and beyond the chute. Close the chute slowly, making sure the bars

collapse around the animal’s body while its head remains in front of the chute. Maintain adequate but not overly restrictive pressure on the bars against the animal’s

body; do not restrict its breathing.

Once the animal is immobilized, record its ear tag numbers, or attach ear tags. If

necessary, attach or replace a radio or identification collar. Draw blood samples by

using protocols identified under “Collecting data from elk outside the handling facility.”

. Check for wounds or injuries that might have existed before handling or that could

have resulted from handling. Administer topical antibiotics to surface wounds, and

inject the animal with antibiotics if needed. If injuries are more serious, transport

the elk to a veterinarian or have a veterinarian examine the animal on site. If the

animal has suffered injuries that appear fatal, euthanize it by following the protocol outlined under “Pain alleviation and euthanasia.”

. Monitor elk for obvious signs of stress (California Department of Fish and Game

1992) during the entire handling period. If at anytime an animal appears heatstressed (for example, hyperventilating and body temperature rising), immediately

move it to a recovery pen outside the handling facility. Once the animal has recovered, release it to the pasture from which it came. If recovery does not occur

within a few hours, have a veterinarian examine the animal. Euthanize the animal

if injury or stress appear fatal, as outlined under “Pain alleviation and euthanasia.”

2 6
Figui

on a

re 12-

digital

-A cow elk in the we

modem outside the

sighing

chute.

chl weights are di Splayed

Figure l&-Surgery room within the elk handling facility

27
Figure 14-The Powder River squeeze chute, used to hold elk while collecting

data and attaching radio collars and ear tags.

Transporting elk-Elk can be transported efficiently and safely with a cattle truck. A

2-ton cattle truck, like that used at Starkey, is typically designed with panels of metal

bars inserted vertically into the sides of a flatbed. The panels provide a visual barrier

between the animals and the outside environment, and are spaced to allow adequate

airflow around the animals during transport. The floor of the flatbed typically has a

nonslip surface of foam or rubber to provide safe, sure footing for animals.

Protocok

. Load elk directly from the squeeze chute of the portable traps or from the loading

ramp at the elk handling facility (fig. 4). If a 2-ton flatbed is used, transport no

more than 20 cow, calf, or de-antlered bull elk. If more than one bull is transported, or when transporting bulls with cows and calves, de-antler the bulls before

loading. If elk appear stressed, do not load them, but hold temporarily in pens for

observation.

. Minimize the time elk are in stock trucks, such as a 2-ton pick-up. Try to load and

transport elk during cooler periods (for example, at night, dawn or dusk, or during

days with cloud cover and temperatures below 40 OF).

. Upon release, monitor animal behavior for signs of stress or injury (as described

in previous sections on handling elk). Release animals in a secure area, and

return within a few hours to check the status of animals that appeared stressed.

If stress or injuries appear fatal, reduce suffering by euthanizing.

28
Baiting animals to the winter areaProtocoL--Place bait trails of alfalfa hay and pellets throughout the study areas each

December when the areas have been closed to the public. Progressively move the

bait trails toward the winter area, as quickly as animals will follow them. Attempt to

attract many deer and elk near the entrances to the winter area by feeding heavily in

these locations. Once animals are concentrated near entrances, move bait lines inside pastures of the winter area until deer and elk follow in large numbers.

Winter feeding In the study areasProtocol-

* Feed animals in the study areas (that is, those animals that do not follow bait

trails to the winter area) ad libifum throughout the winter. In general, feed elk at a

maintenance rate of 8 to 12 pounds of hay/(day*elk), or at a higher rate if weather

and snow dictate. Feed deer at a maintenance rate of 4 to 6 pounds/(day*deer),

or at a higher rate under severe weather and deep snow. Keep main roads open

throughout the study areas to expedite regular feeding of animals.

. Fly over the study areas periodically to monitor distribution of animals in relation

to the bait trails and feeding lines. Adjust locations of the feeding lines so that

most animals have adequate hay and pellets available to them throughout the

study areas. Use snowmobiles to carry feed in areas inaccessible by truck.

Live-trapping and transporting animals to the winter area-In winter, try to livetrap deer and elk that do not follow the bait trails to the winter area. Transport the

animals by truck to the winter area, or release them on site, as appropriate. See

protocols for live-trapping and transporting deer and elk.

Feeding and pasturing animals in winter area-Pastures in the winter area (fig. 3)

contain sufficient cover and water for thermoregulation by deer and elk during most

winter conditions. Because the area receives heavy snowfall and is not historical winter range, forage is limited; consequently, deer and elk here are fed daily to maintain

healthy physical condition and meet research objectives (fig. 5).

Protocok-

. Once deer and elk are transported to or arrive at the winter area, separate the

two species by baiting deer into one pasture by themselves. This will reduce the

likelihood of injuries from fighting between the species.

. Feed animals daily, throughout the winter, at rates as high as animals desire. In

general, feed elk at an equivalent rate of 8 to 12 pounds of hay/(day*elk), or at a

higher rate if weather and snow dictate. Feed deer at an equivalent rate of 4 to 6

pounds/(day*deer), or at a higher rate under severe weather and deep snow. Use

metal feeders to supply pellets, unless conditions are cold and dry, in which case

they can be spread thinly on the ground. If pellets absorb moisture, they deteriorate quickly. To reduce fighting between animals and possible injuries, distribute

food in long, narrow lines throughout each pasture. Vary location of the feeding

lines so that newer hay and pellets are not mixed with older, poor quality hay left

over from past feeding lines. Animals are also provided sulphur blocks, iodized

salt, and a multimineral supplement in granular form.

2 9
Monitor water in the pastures throughout winter to ensure either snow or freestanding water is available. This is especially important during late winter and

early spring when snow has melted but animals have not yet left the winter area.

When needed, place and fill water troughs in pastures. Check troughs daily and

re-fill as necessary.

Reduce human disturbance to animals by allowing people in the pastures only to

feed animals or provide veterinary care. Minimize public entry in the pastures and

allow only with permission of, or when accompanied by, research personnel.

. Control coyote (Canis latrans Say), wild dog, “coydog,” and other predator harassment and predation of deer and elk in the pastures when necessary. Due to the

small pasture size and relatively long fence perimeter, the winter area is an unnatural setting that facilitates predation by canines and felids. Some predator control, either by shooting or trapping, will likely be necessary each year. Authorize

only personnel trained and certified in using control methods to remove predators,

and only after a problem has been documented.

Releasing animals from winter area in spring-Release deer and elk from the winter area when there is sufficient forage to support them in the main and northeast

study areas, usually in late March and early April.

Care of animals living year-round at winter area-Less than 100 wild deer and elk

live within pastures of the winter area on a year-round basis. These deer and elk

function as a reserve that can supplement specific age and’sex classes of the study

herds when needed to meet research objectives. These herds are also a source of

calves and fawns for research with tame animals. See “Raising and care of tame elk“

for details about such research.

Protocok--

. During spring, summer, and fall, allow resident deer and elk the use of all pastures of the winter area. Provide supplemental alfalfa hay and pellets during

periods of drought when high-quality forage may be lacking. Provide free-standing

water in troughs during periods of drought, refilling troughs when necessary.

. To minimize human disturbance and harassment of animals, limit public entry into

the winter area during spring, summer, and fall; allow entry only with permission

of, or when accompanied by, research personnel. Do not allow any management

or human activities within the winter area except those actions providing direct

benefits to deer and elk (table 2).

Operative procedures (surgery)-

Protocob-

. Have a licensed veterinarian conduct, supervise, or approve all surgery in as

clean and sterile an environment as possible. Conduct nonemergency procedures

in the surgery room at the winter area, in the elk handling facility (figs. 4 and 13).

Have the attending veterinarian for the IACUC or another qualified veterinarian

conduct, supervise, or approve all surgical procedures. If the attending veterinarian does not conduct the surgery, he or she should monitor the results for compliance with the program of veterinary care (see footnote 7).

3 0
Raising and care of tame elk-Many papers outline procedures for raising and training juvenile ruminants (Deming 1954, Hobbs and Baker 1979, Krzywinski and others

1980, Neil and others 1979, Parker and Wong 1987, Pekins and Mautz 1985,

Reichert 1972, Robbins and others 1987, Schwartz and others 1976, Wood and

others 1961, Youngson 1970). The procedures outlined below are an amalgamation

derived from the written record, personal communication with researchers who have

much experience with neonatal ruminants, and 2 years of experience raising nearly

50 elk calves. Many of the documented attempts to handraise ruminants were

plagued with variable success, often without specific identification of causes of illness

and mortality. Thus, the following procedures are intended to be general: animal

handlers must be flexible and creative to deal with the many diseases and animal

personalities encountered in raising neonatal ruminants.

Justification---Tractable, hand-reared animals that tolerate nearby observers are-desirable or mandatory for many research purposes. Examples include studies of energetics, disease, physiology, nutrition, reproduction, and food habits. Stress and mortality associated with close constraint and confinement of wild-caught ungulates often

can be avoided with tamed, bottle-raised animals (Parker and Wong 1987).

Facilities-A barn has been built at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range specifically for raising juvenile deer and elk (fig. 15). This barn, measuring 30 by 60 feet,

is built on sealed concrete and is completely enclosed with insulated walls. It contains

two large windows and five doors for ventilation, a small lab with running water, a

feed storage area, and 32 stalls, each 4 by 4 feet, for housing juveniles separately.

The roof contains translucent sheeting to provide natural light, and the barn is

equipped inside and out with electrical lights. Because the barn is intended primarily

for summer use and provides ample protection from wind and rain, heaters are unnecessary. When young calves are maintained in the rearing barn, excrement is removed from stalls daily, and bedding is replaced every other day. Stalls and walkways

are scrubbed once per week with disinfectant, and the entire barn is washed and

scrubbed with disinfectant twice per month. Nursing bottles are individually labeled to

prevent sharing among calves, and washed with soap and hot water after every

feeding. Watering buckets in stalls are emptied and cleaned daily, and feed buckets

are cleaned as necessary.

A l-acre pen, immediately adjacent to the barn, provides an area for juveniles to exercise (fig. 4). Four enclosures, each about 2 acres in size, also provide areas to

keep elk and segregate them as desired by sex, age, or experimental group (see “the

pens,” fig. 3). There is also a 5-acre enclosure at the facility, permitting access to

natural forage (fig. 3, “bull pasture”).

CapUre of juveniles-There are many techniques for capturing neonatal ruminants;

procedures using helicopters are probably the most efficient for capturing neonatal elk

from free-ranging herds. A helicopter crew, working in tandem with a ground crew,

searches suitable parturition habitat. Noise from the helicopter generally evokes a hiding response from neonatal calves, facilitating their capture by a ground crew. Bruce

Smith, National Elk Refuge, and Tom Hobbs and George Bear, Colorado Division of

Wildlife, have extensive experience capturing calves by using helicopters.

Ground searches are used to capture neonatal calves at the Starkey Experimental

Forest and Range. Wild adult cow elk are held on the winter area through parturition

in fenced pastures of about 200 acres (natural diets are supplemented with alfalfa pellets and alfalfa hay). Searches are conducted every 2 or 3 days by six to eight people

through these pastures during late May and June to locate newborn elk.

3 1
Figure 15-Floor plan of the calf-rearing barn within the winter feeding and handling area.

Neonates are captured by surrounding the animal with 4 to 5 people and restraining

by hand or net. This generally requires little effort; their hiding instinct precludes attempts to escape. They are quickly blindfolded to reduce stress, and age is estimated.

If less than 24 hours old, they are immediately released. Calves or fawns that have

not had the opportunity to nurse will likely die if taken from their dam and will be susceptible to disease if they have received inadequate colostrum. Acceptable minimum

age for separation from the mother is 24 hours, because neonates can absorb intact

immunological components from colostrum only during this time (Robbins and others

1987). Johnson (1951) provides detailed aging criteria for elk calves, and frequent

searches (for example, alternate-day) increase the likelihood that calf age is

accurately identified.

Elk calves left with the mother for 3 to 4 days are likely more able to withstand the

stress of handling and disease after separation from the mother. And they seem to be

as tractable as calves taken when 1 to 2 days old. Reichert (1972) notes, however,

that leaving deer fawns with their mothers more than 2 days decreases tractability.

Neonates are blindfolded when transported to the barn. They are given injections of

vitamin ADE and antibiotics (Naxcell and penicillin), and their navels are swabbed

with iodine. They are left alone in their stalls for about 12 hours to permit habituation

to their new surroundings.

Handling and feeding-Nearly constant attention 12 to 16 hours a day during the

first week or so after capture is required to facilitate nursing from a bottle and maximize tractability later in life. Elk calves in particular are reluctant to nurse from a bottle, and require many creative techniques to get them to nurse.” Sheets hanging

“Personal communication. 1991. Charles T. Robbins,

professor, Department of Zoology, Science Hall, Washkgton

State University, Pullman, WA 99163.

3 2
across their stall and lab coats worn by technicians are helpful. Also aprons and vests

made of brown fake fur and fake fur covers for milk bottles are often useful. Animals

that have not nursed within 3 days after capture are force-fed with a syringe equipped

with soft plastic tubing (Hobbs and Baker 1979).

Many studies have presented milk formulas for hand-raising captive cervids. Few

have closely simulated the fat, protein, and dry matter content of wild cervid milk, and

most have been associated with enteritis (Parker and Wong 1987). Charles Robbins

(see footnote 10) and Parker and Wong (1987) have had good success with whole

cow or goat milk combined with a lamb milk replacer, with the milk replacer added at

10 percent of the milk weight. Our success with this formula also has been good.

The frequency of feeding ranges from five to six times per day at 3- to 4-hour intervals during the first 2 to 3 weeks postpartum. Frequency is reduced gradually to

once or twice per day in August, and juveniles are weaned between late August and

November (Hobbs and Baker 1979, Parker and Wong 1987, Reichert 1972).

Feeding volume requires special attention because growth and development are highly dependent on intake. We use data from Robbins and others (1981, fig. 3) to guide

feeding levels for elk calves. Neil and others (1979), Parker and Wong (1987), Pekins

and Mautz (1985), Reichert (1972), and Sadlier (1980) provide data on feeding levels

for deer fawns. Solid food is offered within a few weeks after capture, although we

have found that calves remain uninterested until 3 to 6 weeks old. Solid food includes

dairy-quality’alfalfa hay, alfalfa pellets, calf manna, and grain rations consisting mostly

of rolled oats and corn. Calf manna and grain rations contain vitamin and mineral additives. Milk and solid food consumption are recorded each day.

Juveniles require extensive handling to tame and train during the first 3 months after

capture. Many hours are spent sitting with neonates and providing tender love and

care (Parker and Wong 1987). Several authors have presented specific techniques

for training cervids for various purposes (Hobbs and Baker 1979, Reichert 1972,

Schwartz and others 1976). Some general procedures are important regardless of

the purpose of training: training should begin early in life, negative reinforcement

should always be avoided, positive rewards must be incorporated into training protocols, and training procedures must be repeated frequently.

Care during hunting seasons-Tame elk will be kept in areas closed to hunting and

in areas protected from the view of hunters during hunting seasons. Tame elk at the

elk-handling facility will be moved to pastures furthest from hunters or kept in pens

adjacent to the elk-handling facility to ensure their protection and minimize the likelihood of their being shot accidentally during the hunting seasons.

Treatment of disease--Disease and occasional mortality typically plague efforts to

raise neonates in captivity (Hobbs and Baker 1979, Parker and Wong 1987). Unsuitable milk formula accounts for many difficulties identified in earlier literature, and recent improvements apparently can reduce disease and mortality substantially (Parker

and Wong 1987). Wildlife disease research, however, is documenting an increasing

number of livestock pathogens present in free-ranging ungulate populations, and

these pathogens can cause losses in captive cervids (Smits 1991).

33
Other Protocols

We work extensively with Dr. T. McCoy of La Grande, Oregon, and Drs. S. Parish

and G. Barrington at Washington State University (WSU) to diagnose and treat illness

in sick calves. Postmortem examination is conducted on all carcasses, and sick

calves are transported to WSU for treatment when necessary. Facilities exist to house

sick animals separately from healthy animals. Treatments are recorded for all sick

animals.

Pain alleviation and euthanasia-The prevention of pain during all aspects of care

and handling has been central to the protocols outlined in this paper. All research at

Starkey involving care and handling of animals (tables 1 and 2) uses the most humane and safe methods available. The protocols in this report prescribe methods

that prevent rather than alleviate pain, and the protocols include quick responses to

alleviate pain or to treat injuries. This is particularly true of protocols that deal with

capture myopathy. See “Handling deer to collect data” and “Handling elk outside the

elk handling facility” for examples.

Regardless of how well animals are handled and cared for, some mortality will occur

in association with research activities. With the level of care outlined here, and the

experience of the Starkey Project to date, we anticipate that annual mortality will

amount to no more than a few animals. Additional mortality may occur each year,

however, that is not associated with research operations; this includes mortality from

disease, predation, hunting, and weather. Regardless of the cause of mortality, some

animals will require euthanasia as the most humane form of death.

Protocoi-

* Have the Starkey attending veterinarian train research personnel to recognize

fatal conditions or injuries that may impose great suffering and that present little

chance of recovery for the affected animal(s). Authorize personnel to euthanize all

deer and elk that exhibit such fatal symptoms whenever these animals are found,

preferably with high-powered rifles. Euthanize wild animals with a single shot fired

into the animal’s brain at close range. This is humane and maximizes the personal safety of researchers. Personnel authorized to euthanize animals should

have training in rifle and gun ballistics and knowledge of the proper body locations for placing shots for a quick and humane kill. Euthanize tame animals by

injecting them with sodium pentobarbital, with or without phenytoin sodium

solution (see footnote 7).

. Allow researchers to euthanize a small number of deer and elk each year for research purposes. Use the methods of euthanasia described above. It is estimated

that fewer than 10 animals will be sacrificed for research each year, although the

actual number will vary with annual data requirements. Animals will be sacrificed

only if associated data are deemed essential for meeting research objectives and

only after all other means of data collection have been considered and subsequently deemed less humane, less safe, or less plausible.

. Remove euthanized animals from the winter area or other areas where animal

numbers are high. Bury, burn, or place carcasses in a lime pit if the animals were

diseased or were euthanized with sodium pentobarbital. This will prevent secondary transmission to wildlife scavengers such as bald eagles. Thoroughly sterilize

any indoor facilities where animals have died. Maintain records of all animals that

are euthanized, and list the reasons for euthanasia. Collect and maintain this

information as outlined in “Monitoring the welfare of animals.”

3 4
. Donate to charitable organizations those carcasses that were euthanized by rifle

shot. Carcasses of animals euthanized with drugs cannot be donated for this

purpose.

Monitoring the welfare of animalsPro tocob-

.

*

Each time an animal is handled or cared for, record the results or effects of treatment on the behavior and physical health of the affected animal(s). Specifically

record the following information: type and number of animals handled, painless

handling or care procedures used, painful handling or care procedures used, pain

alleviation used, and posttreatment status of each animal, including any mortalities. Record the date and location of treatment and the people involved. Record

information on data sheets that can be entered directly into a computer database

for convenient storage and retrieval.

Summarize these results in an annual report to the Starkey IACUC. Include the

following information: number of deer and elk that were handled and the types of

handling or care administered, number of deer and elk mortalities that resulted

from research activities compared to the total number of deer and elk handled,

and the number of deer and elk requiring euthanasia in association with research

activities. Also summarize the number of animals euthanized not in association

with research activities: this includes animals found injured from hunting or predators, or those found suffering from a fatal disease or physical condition.

. Summarize results for the same reporting period required by APHIS, which is the

Federal fiscal year that begins October 1 and ends September 30. Transfer data

required by APHIS to their annual report form,” which must be submitted to

APHIS no later than December 1 each year.

* Before submitting data to APHIS (see footnote 1 l), meet with the IACUC to review results of the annual report. interpret results of the report for the IACUC and

recommend improvements in animal care and handling. Incorporate changes approved by the committee in updates of the written protocols.

Training personnelProtocol-

. Issue new employees a copy of the written protocols for animal care and handling. Offer training for new employees to implement these protocols when

deemed necessary. Provide additional training for all personnel when any new

handling techniques, particularly those involving anesthetics, are tested or

adopted for use. Conduct additional training sessions whenever deemed

appropriate by the IACUC.

I’ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service. 1991. APHIS form 7023, and directions

for completing the annual report. 4 p. On file with: Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences

Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

3 5
Functions of the The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) for the Starkey and forest

Institutional Animal cover-elk energetics studies consists of three members: an attending veterinarian for

Care and Use these studies; a local citizen, representing community interests; and an authorized

Committee representative of institutional officials of the Starkey Project. For information about

other key officials, contact the authors.

Membership

Responsibilities and

Legal Authority

The IACUC is legally charged with carrying out the intent of the Animal Welfare Act,

its regulations, and the protocols developed by the research institution. The IACUC is

specifically charged to do the following:

1. Review the facilities and care given all captive species every 6 months. Report significant deficiencies (those that are a threat to health and safety of animals) along

with a specific schedule and plan for correction to the head of the facility. Report

uncorrected deficiencies to APHIS 15 working days after scheduled correction date.

2. Review public or in-house concerns voiced about care and use of animals by

facility personnel.

3. Make recommendations to the facility head regarding use of animals, facilities, and

necessary staff training.

4. Review and approve, require modification to, or deny animal care and use procedures proposed in facility research projects. The IACUC must review ongoing procedures; the committee can suspend all animal-use activities not in accordance

with protocols developed and approved for the research. If any activity is suspended, the head of the facility will review the reasons, take corrective actions, and

report those actions to APHIS.

Biannual Meeting

Inspection

and * Conduct two meetings each year---one in January or February and another in

October or November-of the IACUC and representatives of the research institution. Inspect the Starkey and NCASI research facilities and the care given all captive animals. During the winter meeting, include a field inspection of care and

handling of both tame and wild elk residing at the Starkey winter area, as well

as a field inspection of the NCASI site. During the fall meeting, visit one or both

sites, depending on where tame animals are being cared for at the time of

inspection.

Annual Repo

. Summarize the minutes of each IACUC meeting and the results of each inspection in a written report to the institutional officials. Identify significant deficiencies,

if any, and a specific schedule and plan for correction. Report uncorrected deficiencies to APHIS within 15 working days after scheduled correction date.

HIS . Submit required data to APHIS by December 1 of each year on their report form

(see footnote 11). Provide additional information about animal care and handling

to APHIS, other agencies, and the public, as requested. Public information is considered to be any written report, summaries of data, or data sets that can be reasonably and efficiently retrieved, copied, and distributed to the requesting patty.

Raw data, individual field forms, or other unanalyzed field information also may

be available when it can be efficiently copied and distributed in a comprehensive

form, and when such distribution does not interfere with its analysis by research

personnel.

36
Courtesy Inspections .

by APHIS

Invite the State Regulatory Enforcement and Animal Care (REAC) Veterinary InSpector for APHIS to attend the biannual meetings and inspections of the Starkey

and NCASI sites. Treat any findings, deficiencies, or recommendations made by

the State inspector like those of the IACUC or the attending veterinarian.

Acknowledgments Bill Brown, Larry Bryant, Jerry DePoyster, Bruce Johnson, Ryan Kennedy, Terry

McCoy, and Jack Thomas reviewed the manuscript and provided important

comments about the protocols.

Literature Cited Bull, Evelyn L.; Wisdom, Michael J. 1992. Fauna of the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-291. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28 p.

California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Investigations Laboratory.

1992. Wildlife restraint handbook. Ranch0 Cordova, CA. l-l to 17-1.

Day, Gerald I.; Shemnitz, Sanford D.; Taber, Richard D. 1980. Capturing and

marking wild animals. In: Shemnitz, Sanford D., ed. Wildlife management

techniques. 4th ed. Washington, DC: The Wildlife Society: 61-88.

Deming, O.V. 1954. Rearing bighorn lambs in captivity. California Fish and Game

40: 131-143.

Follis, Thomas B.; Spillett, J. Juan. 1974. Winter pregnancy rates and subsequent

fall cow/calf ratios in elk. Journal of Wildlife Management, 38(4): 789-791.

Fowler, M.E. 1989. Restraint and handling of wild and domestic animals. Ames, IA:

Iowa State University Press. 332 p.

Franklin, J.F.; Dyrness, C.T. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 417 p.

Garbe, Jo Anne L.; Wywialowski, Alice. 1991. The role of the Federal government

in humane treatment of captive wildlife. Transactions, North American Wildlife and

Natural Resources Conference. 56: 372-376.

Hobbs, N. Thompson; Baker, D.L. 1979. Rearing and training elk calves for use in

food habits studies. Journal of Wildlife Managemsnt. 43(2): 568570.

Jessup, D.A.; Clark, W.E.; Gullett, P.A.; Jones, . 1983. Immobilization of mule

deer with ketamine and xylazine, and reversal ci mmobilization with yohimbine.

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 183(11): 1339-1340.

Jessup, D.A.; Jones, K.; Mohr, R.; Kucer T. 1985. Yohimbine antagonism to

xylazine in free-ranging mule deer and d ert bighorn sheep. Journal of the

American Veterinary Medical Association. 187( 11): 1251-l 253.

Johnson, B.K.; Noyes, J.H.; Thomas, J.W.; Bryant, L.D. 1991. Overview of the

Starkey Project: current measures of elk vulnerability. In: Christensen, A.G.; Lyon,

L.J.; Lonner, T.N., camps.: Proceedings of the elk vulnerability symposium; 1991

April 1 O-l 2; Bozeman, MT. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University: 225228.

Johnson, D.E. 1951. Biology of the elk calf, Cervus canadensis nelsoni. Journal of

Wildlife Management. 15: 396-410.

rzywinski, A.; Krzywinska, K.; Kisza, J. [and others]. 1980. Milk composition,

lactation, and the artificial rearing of red deer. Acta Theriologica. 25: 341-347.

37
Leckenby, D.A. 1984. Elk use and availability of cover and forage components in the

Blue Mountains, northeast Oregon, 1976-1982. Wildl. Res. Rep. 14. Portland, OR:

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 40 p.

Neil, P.H.; Woodard, T.N.; Baker, D.L. 1979. Procedures for rearing wild ruminants

in captivity. Game Info. Leafl. 106. Denver: Colorado Division of Wildlife. 4 p.

Parker, K.L.; Wong, B. 1987. Raising black-tailed deer fawns at natural growth

rates. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 65: 20-23.

Pedersen, Richard J. 1977. Big game collar-transmitter package. Journal of Wildlife

Management. 41(3): 578-579.

Pedersen, Richard J. 1985. Elk use of an unlogged and logged forest environment.

Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 142 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Pekins, Peter J.; Mautz, William W. 1985. A new fawn feeding schedule. Wildlife

Society Bulletin. 13: 174-l 76.

Reichert, D.W. 1972. Rearing and training deer for food habits studies. Res. Note

RM-208. Fort Collins, CO: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 p.

Robbins, Charles T.; Oftedal, O.T.; O’Rourke, K.I. 1987. Lactation, early nutrition,

and hand-rearing of wild ungulates, with special reference to deer. In: Wemmer,

C.M., ed. Biology and management of the Cervidae: Research symposia of the

National Zoological Park; [Date of meeting unknown]; [Location of meeting

unknown]. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press: 429-442.

Robbins, Charles T.; Podbielancik-Norman, Roberta S.; Wilson, David L.;

Mould, Eric D. 1981. Growth and nutrient consumption of elk calves compared to

other ungulate species. Journal of Wildlife Management. 45(l): 172-186.

Sadlier, R.M.R.S. 1980. Energy and protein intake in relation to growth of suckling

black-tailed deer fawns. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 58: 1347-1354.

Schwartz, Charles C.; Nagy, Julius G.; Kerr, Stephen M. 1976. Rearing and

training pronghorns for ecological studies. Journal of Wildlife Management. 40(3):

464-468.

Skovlin, J.M. 1991. Fifty years of research progress: a historical document of the

Starkey Experimental Forest and Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-266.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 58 p.

Smits, J.E.G. 1991. A brief review of infectious and parasitic diseases of wapiti, with

emphasis on western Canada and the northwestern United States. Canadian

Veterinary Journal. 32: 471-479.

Strickler, G.S. 1965. The flora of the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range.

Special Res. Pap. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 85 p.

Thomas, J.W. 1989. The Starkey research project: interactions of elk, deer, cattle,

and timber management in fully managed National Forests of the future. In:

Proceedings of the 1989 national convention of the Society of American Foresters;

1989 September 24-27; Spokane, WA. Bethesda, MD: Society of American

Foresters: 141-l 43.

3 8
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

1989. Animal welfare; final rules. In: U.S. Federal Register, 9 CFR Parts 1, 2, and

3. Vol. 54, No. 168. August 31, 1989: 36112-36163.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

1991. Licensing and registration under the Animal Welfare Act: guidelines for dealers, exhibitors, transporters, and researchers. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC. 9 p.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 99-198. Animal Welfare Act; Sections

1751-1759 of the Food Security Act of 1985. Act of Dec. 23, 1985. 7 USC.

2131-2157.

Wisdom, Michael. 1992. The Starkey Project: new technologies chase old questions

about deer and elk management. Western Wildlands. Missoula, MT: Montana Forestry and Conservation Experiment Station, University of Montana: 18: 32-38.

Wood, A.J.; Nordan, H.C.; Cowan, I.M. 1961. The care and management of wild

ungulates for experimental purposes. Journal of Wildlife Management. 25(3):

295302.

Youngson, R.W. 1970. Rearing red deer calves in captivity. Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(2): 467-470.

Appendix 1: Justifi- The FS and National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement

cation and Protocols (NCASI), a private nonprofit research organization, have begun a study about relafor Studies on Forest tions between forest cover and elk condition in the Blue Mountains of northeast

Cover-Elk Energetics Oregon. The primary objectives of the study are to (1) determine if thermal cover sufRelations in the Blue ficiently mediates weather conditions to influence energetics of elk, and (2) validate

Mountains of the component of FS models now used to evaluate forest cover conditions for big

Northeast Oregon game habitats (Thomas and others 1988, Wisdom and others 1986).

Background

Justification The practical value of thermal cover to free-ranging ungulates has been long debated

among wildlife biologists and other scientists (Edge and others 1990; Peek and others

1982; Riggs and others, in press). On one hand, forest cover reduces wind, intercepts

precipitation, moderates winter temperatures, and e!nits thermal radiation (Nyberg and

others 1986, Reifsnyder and Lull 1965, Schwab and others 1987), and thus may provide important energetic benefits to big game (BlacK and others 1976, Nelson and

Leege 1982, Parker 1987, Thomas and others 1988). Observations indicate freeranging ungulates select areas providing thermal cover (Beall 1976, Leckenby 1984,

Zahn 1985), thereby leading many biologists to conclude that thermal cover is a critical component of big game winter ranges. Based on forest cover-weather relations

and results of these mensurative studies, wildlife biologists have developed habitat

models that include forest cover as an evaluation criterion for big game ranges

(Thomas and others 1988, Wisdom and others 1986). These models are now used

to direct forest planning in the Pacific Northwest (Edge and others 1990).

39
General Study Design

In contrast, other biologists refute or question the hypothesis that thermal cover contributes energetic benefits (Freddy 1984, 1986; Hobbs 1989; Peek and others 1982;

Robinson 1960). The alternative hypothesis is that the combination of insulating qualities of pelage, behavioral adjustments to reduce activity and thermal stress, heat increment of digestion, and other physiological adaptations render cover a negligible

role in big game energetics. Controlled studies with deer moreover have failed to

identify significant relations between cover and measures of animal condition (Freddy

1984, 1986; Gilbert and Bateman 1983; Robinson 1960).

This study will carefully examine thermal cover benefits to big game, thereby helping

to clarify these issues. Physiological assessments of elk condition will provide sensitive measures of animal response to forest cover, at a level of sensitivity not included in earlier controlled studies with deer (Freddy 1984, 1986; Gilbert and

Bateman 1983; Robinson 1960). In addition, no previous attempt has been made to

evaluate the suitability of definitions of cover quality, included in habitat evaluation

models, under controlled experimental conditions. This study will provide the first

assessment of this model component.

About 30 tame female elk will be maintained in holding pens in habitat treatment units

that have been either clearcut, partially cut, or left uncut (fig. 16). Three replicates of

each treatment with two to three elk in each replicate will be included in the study. In

a fourth treatment, also with three replicates and two to three elk per replicate, both

uncut forests and clearcuts will be available to elk (fig. 16). Body composition, urine

and blood chemistry, weight, and activity profiles of elk will be measured and compared among treatments. Experimental trials, each about 4 months long, will be conducted during summer and winter beginning in late November 1991 and ending in

March 1994. Assessments will be conducted on calves, yearlings, and adults sequentially during the 3 years of the study.

Figure l&-Tame elk are kept in

nine forest cover treatment units

as part of the forest cover study

near Kamela, Oregon.

40
Figure 17-Covered sheds allow segregation of elk for individualized feeding in the forest cover study at Kamela; note

transmitter mounted on leg to monitor daily activities.

Location and Facilities This study will be conducted on corporate timberlands owned by Boise Cascade Corporation near Kamela, Oregon, about 15 miles north of the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range. Severe defoliation of forest canopies by spruce budworms within the

Starkey fence made the area unsuitable for this experiment. The study site was chosen based on absence of forest-canopy defoliation, accessibility, and other factors

discussed by Irwin and others (see footnote 3).

Elk will be maintained in pens measuring 30 by 80 feet (fig. 16). No artificial cover

is provided. A small enclosed shed with three separate stalls is beside each pen

(figs. 16 and 17). The sheds will permit individualized feeding of elk and collection of

urine through grated floors in each stall. Animals will be allowed inside only for feeding and urine collection. No facilities to alter ambient temperatures or humidity in the

sheds are provided. A weighing chute is attached to each shed, through which elk

must pass each day to be fed (fig. 16). This design allows weighing without changes

in daily elk-handling routines, thereby minimizing stress.

41
Feed and Water

Protocols

Two rations have been developed, one each for winter and summer trials. Rations

have been developed based on the National Research Council (NRC) guidelines for

sheep and cattle (NRC 1984, 1985), with assistance of an animal nutritionist (Dr. Mike

Mehrens, Hermiston, OR). Crude protein levels of the winter and summer ration average 10 percent and 15 percent, respectively, providing protein requirements slightly

above seasonal requirements (NRC 1984, 1985) for nonreproducing ruminants. Energy levels of rations were designed to differ more substantially between seasons,

with the summer ration averaging 70 percent Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) and the

winter ration averaging 60 percent TDN. Both rations have proven palatable to elk in

previous experiments. Vitamins and minerals are added to the ration. Alfalfa hay, fed

at 25 to 40 percent of total daily dry matter intake, will provide roughage. No natural

forage will be available to the elk.

Feeding rates will be adjusted to mimic feeding conditions normally encountered by

free-ranging elk. During winter, volume of food for calves will be slightly submaintenance, resulting in minor (about 5 percent) losses in weight. Volume of food

for yearlings and adults will be more deficient, so that they will lose 10 to 15 percent

of their body weight. We collected data during winter 1991-92 to determine maintenance feeding levels for elk calves. Feeding levels for yearlings and adults will be

based on published data for livestock and deer. During summer, the higher quality

ration will be fed so that growth rates are normal. Daily feeding rates in summer also

will be based on published data for livestock and deer.

Elk will be fed twice each day. The primary ration will be fed during the morning in

the sheds, and alfalfa hay will be fed late in the day to mimic early morning and early

evening feeding patterns often observed in the wild. Covered hay feeders are provided in each pen.

Fresh water will be provided ad libitum except during winter when snow has accumulated within the pens. Requiring elk to consume snow during winter mimics normal

winter range conditions, when unfrozen water is generally unavailable to elk and deer.

This study will measure four variables of tame elk response to forest cover: body

composition (DelGiudice and others 1990; Totbit and others 1985a, 1985b), urine and

blood chemistry (DelGiudice and others 1987, 1990)‘ weight, and activity. Protocols

for each will impose relatively minor stress on experimental animals.

Body composition-Body composition will be determined for each animal at the

beginning, middle, and end of each trial. Animals will be anesthetized with xylazine

hydrochloride administered intramuscularly, and injected with deuterium intravenously.

After equilibrium of deuterium with body fluids (about 5 hours), blood will be collected

via the jugular, and analyzed to determine deuterium concentration. Yohimbine hydrochloride will be used to reverse immobilization effects of xylazine.

Urine and blood chemistry-urine and blood samples will be collected five times

during each summer and winter trial. Urine samples will be collected in the individual

stalls equipped with floor grates permitting passage of urine into collection pans under

the grates. Results from winter 1991-1992 indicated that elk will urinate within 2 to 4

hours after placement in the stalls, so retention time will be short. Blood samples will

be collected via the jugular. Animals will be mildly sedated with a light dose of

xylazine to permit blood sampling, and effects of immobilization will be reversed with

yohimbine. Collecting blood samples generally requires about 15 minutes.

42
Treatment of Disease

Weight-Weight will be measured twice each week during each trial. Weighing

chutes leading into the barns will be equipped with portable electronic scales. Animals

will be weighed when brought into the barn for feeding. No sedation or abnormal handling procedures will be required to weigh animals.

Activity profiles-Twenty-four-hour activity profiles will be obtained from pulse rates

of leg-mounted, motion-sensitive radio transmitters (fig. 17; Riggs and others 1990).

Specially designed transmitters will be mounted on the shank just above the fetlock

on the right front leg. The shank will be wrapped with gauze and vet-wrap before

placement of the transmitters. These transmitters are generally ignored by the experimental animals and cause no physical damage if time of attachment is restricted to

less than 15 days. Attachment of transmitters generally can be done without sedation.

General immobilization procedures-Our decision to use xylazine hydrochloride

reflects its high therapeutic index, availability of an antidote (yohimbine hydrochloride),

and nontoxic effects in humans. We have used xylazine extensively with tame calf

and yearling elk, with good results at dosages ranging from 0.05 to 0.2 milligrams per

pound of body weight (l/20 to 115 recommended levels). And we have found yohimbine to be a satisfactory antidote, particularly when animals are lightly sedated.

Virtually all immobilizations will require light dosages of xylazine (0.05 to 0.1 milligrams per pound) and short handling times (less than 15 minutes) before the antidote

is administered. Probability of complications such as hypothermia or hyperthermia is

low. Animals will be monitored, and yohimbine will be administered if complications

are observed. During the summer, immobilizations will be restricted to early morning

hours to avoid high ambient temperatures.

Treatment of sick animals is similar to that described under “Raising and care of

tame elk.”

43
Literature Cited in Beall, Roben C. 1976. Elk habitat selection in relation to thermal radiation. In: Hieb,

Appendix 1 S.R., ed. Elk-logging-roads: Proceedings of a symposium. Moscow, ID: University

of Idaho: 97-100.

Black, H., Jr.; Scherzlnger, R.J; Thomas, J.W. 1976. Relationships of Rocky Mountain elk and Rocky Mountain mule deer habitat to timber management in the Blue

Mountains of Oregon and Washington. In: Hieb, S.R., ed. Elk-logging-roads:

Proceedings of a symposium. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho: 11-31.

DelGiudice, Glenn D.; Mech, L. David; Seal, Ulysses S. 1990. Effects of winter

undernutrition on body composition and physiological profiles of white-tailed deer.

Journal of Wildlife Management. 54(4): 539-550.

DelGiudice, Glenn D.; Mech, L. David; Seal, Ulysses S.; Karns, Patrick D. 1987.

Effects of winter fasting and refeeding on white-tailed deer blood profiles. Journal

of Wildlife Management. 51(4): 865-873.

Edge, W. Daniel; Olson-Edge, Sally L.; Irwin, Larry L. 1990. Planning for wildlife in

national forests: elk and mule deer habitats as an example. Wildlife Society

Bulletin. 18: 87-98.

Freddy, D. J. 1984. Quantifying capacity of winter ranges to support deer-evaluation

of thermal cover used by deer. Wildl. Res. Rep. Denver: Colorado Division of

Wildlife: 21-24.

Freddy, D. J. 1986. Quantifying capacity of winter ranges to support deer-evaluation

of thermal cover used by deer. Wildl. Res. Rep. Denver: Colorado Division of

Wildlife: 9-18.

Gilbert, F.F.; Bateman, M.C. 1983. Some effects of winter shelter conditions on

white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus. Canadian Field Naturalist. 97: 391-400.

Hobbs, N. Thompson. 1989. Linking energy balance to survival in mule deer: development and test of a simulation model. Wildi. Monogr. 101. Bethesda, MD: The

Wildlife Society. 39 p. Supplement to Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(2): 1989

April.

Leckenby, D.A. 1984. Elk use and availability of cover and forage habitat components in the Blue Mountains, northeast Oregon, 1976-1982. Wildi. Res. Rep. 14.

Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 40 p.

National Research Council. 1984. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press. 90 p.

National Research Council. 1985. Nutrient requirements of sheep. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press. 99 p.

Nelson, JR.; Leege, T.A. 1982. Nutrition and food habits. In: Thomas, J.W.; Toweili,

Dale, eds. Elk of North America--ecology and management. Harrisburg, PA:

Stackpole Books: 323-369. Chapter 8.

Nyberg, J.B.; Bunnell, F.L.; Janz, D-W.; Eills, R.M. 1986. Managing young forests

as black-tailed deer winter ranges. Land Manage. Rep. No. 37. Victoria, BC:

information Services Branch, Ministry of Forests. 49 p.

Parker, K.L. 1987. Effects of heat, cold, and rain on coastal black-tailed deer.

Canadian Journal of Zoology. 66: 2475-2483.
Peek, J.M.; Scott, M.D.; Nelson, L.J. [and others 1. 1982. The role of cover in

habitat management for big game in northwestern United States. Transactions,

North American Wildlife Natural Resources Conference. 47: 363-373.

Reifsnyder, William E.; Lull, Howard W. 1965. Radiant energy in relation to forests.

Tech. Bull. No. 1344. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service. 111 p.

Riggs, Robert A.; Urness, Philip J.; Gonzalez, Karen A. 1990. Effects of domestic

goats on deer wintering in Utah oakbrush. Journal of Range Management. 43(3):

229-234.

Riggs, R.A.; Cook, J.G.; Irwin, L.L. [In press]. Cover and timber management on

interior northwest winter range: some thoughts on reducing conflict. In: Proceedings

of the western states and provinces elk workshop; 1990 May 15; Arcata, CA.

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown].

Robinson, William L. 1960. Test of shelter requirements of penned white-tailed

deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 24(4): 364-371.

Schwab, Francis E.; Pitt, Michael D.; Schwab, Susan W. 1987. Browse burial

related to snow depth and canopy cover in northcentral British Columbia. Journal

of Wildlife Management. 51(2): 337-342.

Thomas, Jack Ward; Leckenby, Donavin A.; Henjum, Mark [and others] . 1988.

Habitat-effectiveness index for elk on Blue Mountain winter ranges. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-218. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28 p.

Torbit, Stephen C.; Carpenter, Len H.; Alldredge, A.W.; Swift, David M. 1985a.

Mule deer body composition-a comparison of methods. Journal of Wildlife

Management. 49(i): 86-91.

Torblt, Stephen C.; Carpenter, Len H.; Swift, David M.; Alldredge, A.W. 1985b.

Differential loss of fat and protein by mule deer during winter. Journal of Wildlife

Management. 49(l): 80-85.

Wisdom, M.J.; Bright, L.R.; Carey, C.G. [and others 1. 1986. A model to evaluate

elk habitat in western Oregon. Publ. No. R6-F&WL-216-1986. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 35 p.

Zahn, H.M. 1985. Use of thermal cover by elk (Cervus elaphus) on a western

Washington summer range. Seattle: University of Washington. 175 p. Ph.D.

dissertation.

45
Appendix 2:

Definition of Terms

Terms that are relevant to care and handling of animals at the Starkey Experimental

Forest and Range are defined in the CFR Standards (USDA APHIS 1989) for implementing the Animal Welfare Act (U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. 1985). Selected definitions

are quoted in the following list.

Activity: Those elements of research, testing, or teaching procedures that

involve the care and use of animals.

Animal: Any live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, hamster,

rabbit, or any other warm-blooded animal, which is being used, or is intended

for use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes,

or as a pet. This term excludes: Birds, rats of the genus Raftus and mice of the

genus Mus bred for use in research, and horses and other farm animals, such

as, but not limited to, livestock and poultry, used or intended for use as food or

fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal

nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the

quality of food or fiber. With respect to a dog, the term means all dogs including

those used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes.

APHIS: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture.

APHIS, Regulatory Enforcement and Animal Care, Animal Care Sector

Supervisor: A veterinarian or his designee, employed by APHIS, who is

assigned by the administrator to supervise and perform the official work of

APHIS in a given State or States.

Attending Veterinarian: A person who has graduated from a veterinary school

accredited by the American Veterinary Medical Association Council on Education, or has a certificate issued by the American Veterinary Medical Association’s

Education Commission for Foreign Veterinary Graduates, or has received equivalent formal education as determined by the Administrator; has received training

or experience in the care and management of the species being attended; and

who has direct or delegated authority for activities involving animals at a facility

subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary.

Committee: The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) established under section 13(b) of the Act. It shall consist of at least three (3)

members, one of whom is the attending veterinarian of the research facility and

one of whom is not affiliated in any way with the facility other than as a member

of the committee, however, if the research facility has more than one Doctor of

Veterinary Medicine (DVM), another DVM with delegated program responsibility

may serve. The research facility shall establish the Committee for the purpose

of evaluating the care, treatment, housing, and use of animals, and for certifying

compliance with the Act by the research facility.

4 6
Euthanasia: The humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method

that produces rapid unconsciousness and subsequent death without evidence

of pain or distress, or a method that utilizes anesthesia produced by an agent

that causes painless loss of consciousness and subsequent death.

Federal Research Facility: Each department, agency, or instrumentality of the

United States which uses live animals for research or experimentation.

Field Study: Any study conducted on free-living wild animals in their natural

habitat, which does not involve an invasive procedure, and which does not

harm or materially alter the behavior of the animals under study.

Handling: Petting, feeding, watering, cleaning, manipulating, loading, crating,

shifting, transferring, immobilizing, restraining, treating, training, working and

moving, or any similar activity with respect to any animal.

Housing Facility: Any land, premises, shed, barn, building, trailer, or other

structure or area housing or intended to house animals.

Indoor Housing Facility: Any structure or building with environmental controls

housing or intended to house animals and meeting the following three

requirements:

1. It must be capable of controlling the temperature within the building or structure within the limits set forth for that species of animal, of maintaining

humidity levels of 30 to 70 percent and of rapidly eliminating odors from

within the building; and

2. It must be an enclosure created by the continuous connection of a roof, floor,

and walls (a shed or barn set on top of the ground does not have a continuous connection between the walls and the ground unless a foundation and

floor are provided); and

3. It must have at least one door for entry and exit that can be opened and

closed (any windows or openings which provide natural light must be

covered with a transparent material such as glass or hard plastic).

Inspector: Any person employed by the Department who is authorized to

perform a function under the Act and the regulations in 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3.

Institutional Official: The individual at a reseanh acility who is authorized to

legally commit on behalf of the research facility that the requirements of 9 CFR

parts 1, 2, and 3 will be met.

Licensed Veterinarian: A person who has graduated from an accredited school

of veterinary medicine or has received equivalent formal education as determined by the Administrator, and who has a valid license to practice veterinary

medicine in some state.

4 7
Major Operative Procedure: Any surgical intervention that penetrates and

exposes a body cavity or any procedure which produces permanent impairment of physical or physiological functions.

Outdoor Housing Facility: Any structure, building, land, or premise, housing or

intended to house animals, which does not meet the definition of any other type

of housing facility provided in the regulations, and in which temperatures cannot

be controlled with set limits.

Painful Procedure: Any procedure that would reasonably be expected to cause

more than slight or momentary pain or distress in a human being to which that

procedure was applied; that is, pain in excess of that caused by injections or

other minor procedures.

Paralytic Drug: A drug causing partial or complete loss of muscle contraction

and which has no anesthetic or analgesic properties, so that the animal cannot

move, but is completely aware of its surroundings and can feel pain.

Positive Physical Contact: Petting, stroking, or other touching, which is

beneficial to the well-being of the animal.

Primary Enclosure: Any structure or device used to restrict an animal or animals to a limited amount of space, such as a room, pen, run, cage, compartment, pool, hutch, or tether. In the case of animals restrained by a tether (e.g.,

dogs on chains), it includes the shelter and the area within reach of the tether.

Principal Investigator: An employee of a research facility, or other person

associated with a research facility, responsible for a proposal to conduct

research and for the design and implementation of research involving animals.

Quorum: A majority of the Committee members.

Research Facility: Any school (except an elementary or secondary school),

institution, organization, or person that uses or intends to use live animals in

research, tests, or experiments, and that (1) purchases or transports live animals

in commerce, or (2) receives funds under a grant, award, loan, or contract from

a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States for the purpose of

carrying out research, tests, or experiments: Provided, That the Administrator

may exept, by regulation, any such school, institution, organization, or person

that does not use or intend to use live dogs or cats, except those schools, institutions, organizations, or persons, which use substantial numbers (as determined by the Administrator) of live animals the principal function of which

schools, institutions, organizations, or persons, is biomedical research or testing,

when in the judgment of the Administrator, any such exemption does not vitiate

the purpose of the Act.

4 8
Sanitize: To make physically clean and to remove and destroy, to the maximum

degree that is practical, agents injurious to health.

Sheltered Housing Facility: A housing facility which provides the animals with

shelter; protection from the elements; and protection from temperature extremes

at all times. A sheltered housing facility may consist of runs or pens totally

enclosed in a barn or building, or of connecting inside/outside runs or pens with

the inside pens in a totally enclosed building.

Standards: The requirements with respect to the humane housing, exhibition,

handling, care, treatment, temperature, and transportation of animals by dealers,

exhibitors, research facilities, carriers, intermediate handlers, and operators of

auction sales.

Study Area: Any building room, area, enclosure, or other containment outside

of a core facility or centrally designated or managed area in which animals are

housed for more than 12 hours.

Wild Animal: Any animal which is now or historically has been found in the wild,

or in the wild state, within the boundaries of the United States, its territories, or

possessions. This term includes, but is not limited to animals such as: Deer,

skunk, opossum, raccoon, mink, armadillo, coyote, squirrel, fox, wolf.

Wild State: Living in its original, natural condition, not domesticated.

"U.S. GOVERNb~NT PRINTING OFFICE: lY93-790-301/80015 4 9

Wisdom, Michael J.; Cook, John G.; Rowland, Mary M.; Noyes, James H. 1993.

Protocols for care and handling of deer and elk at the Starkey Experimental Forest

and Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTb311. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 49 p.

Several hundred Rocky Mountain elk (Cervvs &aphus nelsoni V. Bailey) and Rocky

Mountain mule deer (Ocbcojleus hemionus hemionus Rafinesque) inhabit a fenced,

25,099-acre endosum at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range in the Blue

Mountains of northeast Oregon. Research there requires handling most of these animals

each winter. In addition, 33 elk calves have been captured and raised for research.

Protocols for care and handling of deer and elk are described. Legal requirements for the

operation of facilities and research within the enclosure also are discussed.

Keywords: Elk, mule deer, animal welfare, Starkey Experimental Forest and Range, Blue

Mountains (Oregon), tame elk.

The Forest Sewfce of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple

use management of the Nation’s forest resources

for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife,

and recreation. Through forestry research,

cooperation with the States and private forest

owners, and management of the National Forests

and National Grasslands, it strives-as directed by

Congress-to provide increasingly greater service

to a growing Nation

The U.S. Department of Agtfculture is an Equal

Opportunity Employer. Applicants for all Department

programs will be given equal consideration without

regard to age, race, color, sex, religion, or national

origin.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890