Used goats on C4 (Combat Casualty Care Course) at Camp Bullis (San Antonio Tx) but that's approaching thirty-five years ago. They would tissue dye the cadavers afterward to prevent them being (surreptitiously) diverted to the food chain.
I can't speak to current CF practice, but I was involved (years and years ago) when it was suggested that we run our own in-house ATLS courses, which back then would have required live animals as the sim just wasn't on par. Remember also that "ATLS" as a formal protocol was only developed/introduced in 1980.
When we were planning the "new" school in the late 1980s (was built and opened in the early 90s), one of the spaces proposed (I don't recall who originated the idea) was an "animal lab". At that time, ATLS was primarily given only to doctors who did it during their very short classification training (mostly non-clinical); it was contracted out and done, usually, at a med school in Toronto. Easy peasy and didn't cost too much in the grand scheme of things. Having it in-house would be a nice to have and (or so I was told) it would be more convenient for scheduling plus they could provide the experience to more occupations. We were reviewing the original draft of the architect's drawings and (along with a number of other inconsistencies) the small space proposed for an "animal lab" stood out. As we (the CFMS as a whole and my section in the SurgGen specifically) had no previous experience with operating such, it took a little research to see what was needed. It fell on me to research the issue (from a business, not clinical case side) because if it was a valid requirement then we would have justify it when presenting to TB (yes, they sometimes got that far down in the weeds on construction projects - it happened when we were building the hospital in Lahr).
It's so much easier now with internet (thank you Al Gore). What I was able do to in a few short minutes this morning took me the better part of a week or more (obviously not full time) to contact various federal, provincial and NGO regulatory agencies/groups as well as some with experience in animal use in medical training and research (yes, I did call Suffield - I was once a
guinea pig test subject for them, but that's another story). From a regulatory and PR perspective, the consensus from all was "it's not worth it". From a business side, it would have been about an additional $750K not accounted for in our proposed budget and a few (or more) hundred thousand "annually" to operate it that the CFMSS hadn't considered when they proposed it. At the time they were spending about $20k/$30K to send the docs down the road to do it. Their concept had been "we'll get strays from the pound" which immediately generated a "check fire" response. The animal lab was not included in the new school.
To add to the discussion, a few links to some papers that provide a military clinician perspective.
From 1990 a British paper (this would be roughly contemporary to my above experience)
Animal cadaveric models for advanced trauma life support training.
and some more recent Canadian opinions
publications.gc.ca
