“In any cardinal direction this elk could have traveled, it would have presented a substantial public safety risk for a vehicle collision,” Royse explained. “It was in a very bad place, and the only option it had was to move to somewhere worse.” 

Doing nothing is sometimes the best answer, but decision-making is dynamic

In many cases, such as with the two moose that have taken up temporary residence in outlying Boise communities, the risks of moving the animal currently outweigh the risks of not doing so. These two moose are hanging out in areas without any major concerns for traffic collisions, have not been reported as showing signs of aggression, and have opportunities to move safely out of the area into connected open spaces.

“There is some risk involved with living in close proximity to any wild animal, including a moose, but the evidence we have tells us that the risk with these moose is low,” Royse said. “We have been actively working to further mitigate that risk, to a level that is less than the risk of darting and relocating, through proactive communication with, and education of area residents.”

That said, the factors that go into Fish and Game’s decision-making are dynamic. When they make an initial decision not to intervene with an animal in town, Fish and Game staff continue to monitor the situation, and routinely reevaluate their decisions as circumstances change. 

Even in the moment, the right decision in the interest of public safety can change from hazing or darting and moving an animal to dispatching it.   

“When it comes to dealing with wildlife in unsuitably urban areas, every variable in that equation can change on a dime. Our decision-making must be just as nimble and dynamic,” Royse said. “The only truly rigid element of our decision-making process is that we are putting public safety first, followed by the safety of our staff and the safety of the animal.”