Urban wildlife: When large wildlife and communities mix, it often ends poorly for the animals

A bull moose takes up residence in an upscale, suburban neighborhood, and Idaho Fish and Game staff gets multiple reports from homeowners.

What should Fish and Game do?

A.   Watch to see if the moose stays, how it reacts to residents, and vice versa?

B.   Educate residents on why the moose is there, and what’s likely to happen next?

C.   Immobilize the moose and move it back to the wild?

D.   All the above?

None of the choices are wrong, and in the recent case of a bull moose that lived for months in a Boise suburb, the answer was D.

This story has a longer and shorter version because it’s a case study in the complexity of managing an individual animal and people’s attitudes and expectations about what Fish and Game should do, or not do, when a large, wild animal enters their neighborhood.

“Fish and Game staff and the community were both pleased with the outcome, but it was a long process and it’s fair to say there wasn’t always 100 percent agreement with every decision we made,” Fish and Game’s Southwest Region Supervisor Josh Royce said. “We can’t guarantee every outcome will work out this way, but we can guarantee we will always take into account people’s safety along with the welfare of the animal, and that will always be a tricky balancing act.” 

When people and wildlife mix

Fish and Game staff routinely deals with these situations, and while this occurred near Idaho’s largest city, it could (and does) happen everywhere in the state.

The Boise moose was first reported in May, and Fish and Game staff initially visited the community to evaluate the situation, and worked with local community leadership to provide information to residents about living safely near moose. Staff also knocked on doors in the immediate area where the moose was located and reiterated the key points about it: Give it space, keep your pets away, and it may move on its own. The moose was primarily hanging out in a marshy area that was not conducive to Fish and Game staff darting and relocating it. Overall, the risk to people appeared minimal.

Staff continued to monitor it to see how the moose behaved, as well as people’s reactions to it. This went on for a few months, but by late summer, attitudes started to shift.

“We had people let us know they loved having a moose in the neighborhood, and others who complained about it and wanted us to relocate it,” said Fish and Game Southwest Region Communications Manager Brian Pearson said. “That’s pretty typical because after the novelty of a large animal in your neighborhood wears off, its presence becomes divisive, and feelings can get pretty intense on both sides.”

Hello, I’m your friendly neighborhood moose, until I’m not

Wild animals may seem docile at times, but they are not pets, and there’s always an element of risk when people and large animals occupy the same area. Not to be alarmist, but deer, elk and moose have all attacked people in Idaho. It’s rare, but it happens.

To complicate matters, wildlife are typically temporary visitors, usually staying around residential areas for a few days, weeks, or possibly months, but eventually returning to the wild on their own. This cycle is fairly common in Idaho where animals often winter at lower elevations near cities and towns, rural homes and ranches. But in some cases, particularly with deer, they can settle in and become year-round residents.

There are also certain times of year when deer, elk and moose can be aggressive to people and pets, typically during fawning/calving season when females are protecting their young, and during the late summer/fall breeding season when males become combative.

Fish and Game staff knew by late summer that moose breeding season was arriving, and if the bull didn’t leave on his own, they would probably have to relocate it. In a worst-case scenario where a person was at immediate risk of injury because the moose became aggressive, a Fish and Game employee would have to euthanize it on the spot. Fortunately, that didn’t happen.

The myth of human/wildlife coexistence

People’s tolerance and appreciation for wildlife is admirable. But “coexisting” with wild animals often leads to a well-intended – but inaccurate – assumption that it’s a two-way agreement that animals are incapable of making.

When an animal seems secure and nonthreatening, people often “adopt” it as a neighbor without knowing the downsides of living close to wildlife.

To make matters more challenging for Fish and Game, urbanized wildlife often divides residents. Some people love seeing wild animals and consider them beneficial to the neighborhood, while others resent them, and sometimes, a larger problem can literally sneak in.

Similarities between big game and birds

Take for example the common – and perfectly acceptable – practice of feeding birds. Many people routinely do it, and they tend to see a predictable pattern emerge. Birds show up more frequently, and often in greater numbers. Sometimes other animals will take advantage of easily accessible food, such as squirrels and other small rodents, possibly skunks and raccoons, and even bears.

Then one morning, a homeowner may find a dead bird, or a pile of feathers near the bird feeder. By feeding birds and congregating natural prey, they attracted a predator. 

A similar dynamic occurs when larger animals, typically deer, take up residence near people’s homes. The deer find food and feel secure, the herd increases, and predators such as mountain lions, coyotes and bobcats, are likely to find them.

In the case of town deer (and occasionally, elk), predators rarely keep the local population in check, so the herd grows. Eventually, they often become year-round residents that outlast their welcome when they take over people’s property, eat landscaping, leave piles of droppings, create traffic hazards, and become aggressive toward people and pets.

Some Idaho’s towns and cities also have resident bears that create their own set of problems by raiding garbage cans, gardens and feeders, or attacking livestock and pets.

Immobilizing and relocating isn’t as simple as it might seem

Another common misconception is that Fish and Game can work like a reverse Amazon delivery truck that shows up, puts a large, wild animal gently to sleep and whisks it back to its natural habitat. It takes a large team and special equipment that has to be deployed each time.

Fish and Game has an excellent track record of relocating animals, but it always poses risks. Pearson explains the “behind the scenes” decisions involved with relocating a wild animal.

“Darting and relocating any animal involves the use of potent immobilization drugs that produce significant physiological effects and carry inherent risks, even in a controlled environment,” he said. “The risk is not only for the animal, but also Fish and Game staff who have to immobilize and handle that animal.”

There are very real risks of an animal dying as a result of using an immobilization drug, including those associated with the drugs themselves, or from situations that arise after darting, but before the immobilization drug kicks in.

Biologists don’t know exactly how each animal will react to being drugged, or where it might go immediately after being darted, but before the drug takes effect.

An animal might run into traffic, into water and drown, or some place else that can harm them. Even in the best of situations, darting wildlife is always stressful to the animals.

When Fish and Game decides to dart and move an animal, staff takes every step to mitigate these risks. That includes protecting people and traffic by controlling public entry into an area where the animal is located. 

“There are many factors to the decision-making that Fish and Game evaluates when deciding to immobilize and relocate an animal,” Pearson said. “But it essentially boils down to this: Are there other options for getting the animal out of the area that involve less risk? And if not, does the risk to public safety of doing nothing outweigh the risk involved with chemical immobilization?”

Again, it’s that tricky balancing act.

Managing a head vs managing a herd

Fish and Game staff have decades of experience with these situations, and if they feel conflict with people is inevitable, often they will immediately move an animal despite it not posing an immediate risk to the public.

While watching and waiting may be preferred by some local residents, Fish and Game biologists and conservation officers know prolonged monitoring of an individual animal can take up a disproportional amount of time and detract from their larger mission of managing whole herds and populations.

Let’s keep Idaho’s wildlife wild 

Idahoans value and treasure wildlife, and that includes both populations and individuals. There are inherent conflicts when wildlife, particularly large wildlife, live close to people, and it rarely works out well for the animals.

 An animal visiting for a brief amount of time is one of the highlights of living in Idaho, and it’s one we all enjoy and appreciate.

But when temporary becomes extended – or permanent – Fish and Game staff knows trouble isn’t far behind. Urban deer and elk herds create a host of problems already mentioned, bears are notorious garbage raiders who will continue to seek that food throughout their lives, mountain lions can make pets part of their diet, and large animals create challenges for everyone from urban homeowners to motorists to rural farmers and ranchers.

That’s why it’s always best for wild animals to live in wild, natural habitat. Like when we go outdoors and become temporary visitors to their homes, they should also be temporary visitors to ours.