When relative quantities consumed are used 
as an index to relative preference for different 
kinds of forage, it usually is understood that 
intake is influenced both by availability and 
palatability. In developing preference ratings 
from data on forage use by tame deer, Watts 
(1964) include percent species composition of 
the total available vegetation on belt transects: 
Total feeding — seconds 
Percent availability 
Preference = 
Neff (1967b) proposed the following proce- 
dure: 
Preference = 
Number of bites X mean weight per bite 
Estimated availability 
in which mean weight per bite was determined 
from plucked samples, and species were ranked 
in visually estimated abundance classes. In de- 
termining relative preferences of different 
classes of animals for the same forage species 
within the same pastures, McMahan used dif- 
ferences between classes in the mean number 
of bites of that species. 
Relative preference is obviously a complex 
abstraction which is not completely resolved by 
these methods. 
TRAINING AND HANDLING 
The first step in taming and training is to 
teach the animal to rely on the human trainer. 
This is best done by bottle feeding a new-born 
animal which has been separated from the 
dam. This involves much work and _ the 
probability of digestive upsets, but an accept- 
able level of tameness is the natural result of 
several weeks of frequent feedings. There 
seems to be no difference in tameness between 
wild-caught and pen-born deer fawns when 
both are handled and fed the same way. 
Observation of pen-raised, tame, trained 
deer at Flagstaff shows that even the most 
tractable individuals retain some _ inherent 
wildness. They all are startled, even panicked, 
by loud noises or sudden movements. They are 
easily frightened if they begin to feel crowded 
or if they are caught and held for more than a 
few seconds. Fundamental to a_ successful 
training program is the avoidance of all 
frights and stresses which the deer might asso- 
ciate with the training procedures. A young 
horse may respond well to gentle but unyield- 
ing force in training, but this approach would 
probably cause chronic blind panic if applied 
to deer. At Flagstaff we have occasionally had 
to tackle the deer for medication, but such man- 
handling is to be avoided as much as possible. 
Training deer is greatly facilitated by the 
use of pens and other equipment designed for a 
quiet, uneventful operation. Of course, all 
equipment is designed to avoid injury to deer. 
The whole operation must also be escape proof. 
The operations of harnessing and unharness- 
ing, and loading and unloading from the truck, 
must all be accomplished quickly and without 
exciting or restraining the deer. A favored 
food may be used as bait to keep the deer inter- 
ested during harnessing and to entice the ani- 
mal into the pen or vehicle. However, deer cur- 
rently being used by the Rocky Mountain For- 
est and Range Experiment Station are so gen- 
tle they permit harnessing even when they are 
lying down. 
Training for harness work has been de- 
scribed by Watts (1964), Healy (1967), and 
Neff (1967b), and for free-ranging work by 
Wallmo (1964). Essentially, the training con- 
sisted of frequent handling and petting, har- 
nessing and leading, feeding in the vehicle, and 
Short rides. The most careful and consistent 
training program may be unsuccessful with 
some individuals. Two of five mule deer doe 
fawns captured on the North Kaibab in 1965 
refused to accept harnessing and were never 
used in the field (Neff 1967b). However, both 
McMahan (1964) and Wallmo (1964) were 
able to train deer to feed in the field and to re- 
enter the vehicle without any kind of physical 
restraint. 
With harnessed deer, the observer can lead 
the animal away from sample area bound- 
aries or from dangerous objects such as cliffs 
and fences, and lead them back to the pen or 
vehicle after feeding trials. Although the deer 
are permitted as much free rein as possible 
during trials, this leading capability gives the 
observer full control when he needs it. If the 
harness is not used, it is necessary to establish 
in the deer complete reliance in its handler. 
This security bond ensures that the deer will 
not stray off for long. We have learned in cur- 
rent work in Colorado that some deer that do 
not accept being led still can be used effectively 
without a harness. 
A holding pen on or near the sample area is 
highly desirable, and an adequate transport 
system is vital. Watts (1964) and Healy 
(1967) each used a trailer for transport. 
Wallmo (1964) and Neff (1966) were faced 
with numerous, separate sampling areas con- 
nected by rough roads poorly suited to trailer 
hauling. The final solution was a utility-bed 
pickup truck with a custom-built enclosed deer 
compartment and a removable loading ramp. 
Frels and Veteto (1966) used a_ standard 
pickup bed with a woven wire enclosure and an 
integral loading ramp. 
The time of day and length of observation 
period has varied with the handling methods 
and research objectives. McMahan (1964) used 
45-minute periods, 1 period per day, and 4 
days per week. Several observers used 1 to 2 
hours per trial period (Watts 1964; Neff 
107 
