Yangmingshan National Park Headquarters Loses Final Appeal Over Buffalo Deaths Penalty

In late 2020, a mass die-off of water buffaloes in Yangmingshan National Park sparked widespread public concern and uproar. The incident not only tested the nerves of animal protection groups and the general public, but also thrust the official agency responsible for managing the national park's ecology and conservation into the eye of a public relations and legal storm. Following an investigation, the Taipei City Animal Protection Office determined that the Yangmingshan National Park Headquarters was indeed negligent in the care and management of the water buffaloes, and fined the agency NT$75,000 in accordance with the Animal Protection Act. Dissatisfied with the penalty and arguing that it faced numerous practical difficulties in its actual operations, the park administration decided to file an administrative lawsuit to contest the fine. After winding through the judicial process, the second-instance court recently handed down its final ruling, determining that the original disposition by the Taipei City Animal Protection Office was without error. Consequently, the park administration's appeal was dismissed and the ruling is final, bringing the case to a close.

Looking back at the trajectory of the incident, between October and December 2020, successive cold waves struck the Qingtianjian and Qixingshan areas within Yangmingshan National Park, where a large number of water buffaloes were subsequently found dead under abnormal circumstances. According to statistics and subsequent investigations at the time, dozens of buffaloes collapsed and died one after another, their carcasses scattered across vast grassy slopes in a heartbreaking scene. These water buffaloes were not native wild animals, but rather the descendants of cattle left behind for grazing during early agricultural periods. After decades of reproduction, they had become a part of Yangmingshan National Park's unique cultural landscape and ecology. The mass death of numerous water buffaloes in a short period immediately triggered strong criticism from animal welfare groups, who argued that the competent authority—the Yangmingshan National Park Headquarters—failed to properly assess climate changes before the arrival of winter, did not provide adequate windbreaks or food supplies, and even failed to actively intervene when the buffaloes showed health warning signs such as malnutrition, pointing to suspected negligence in care and animal cruelty.

Faced with mounting questioning and criticism from the outside, the Taipei City Animal Protection Office intervened to conduct an administrative investigation. The Animal Protection Office reviewed whether animal keepers or managers fulfilled their obligations of protection and medical care when facing harsh weather and deteriorating animal health conditions, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Animal Protection Act. Following multifaceted evaluations by experts, scholars, and animal welfare organizations, the Animal Protection Office concluded that the park administration, as the de facto manager and caregiver of the cattle in the area, bore a certain degree of responsibility for the survival of the water buffaloes. In the face of the crisis of extreme weather and a shortage of food sources, the park administration failed to take timely and effective preventive and rescue measures, causing the animals to suffer and die. Consequently, it fined the park administration NT$75,000 for violating the Animal Protection Act.

Regarding the fine, the park administration expressed differing legal interpretations and practical dilemmas from the very beginning and throughout the subsequent litigation process. The park administration argued that these water buffaloes had lived in Yangmingshan for a long time and had long returned to a feral state, classifying them as a "free-roaming" wild animal population rather than general livestock or captive pets. The park administration maintained that one of the core purposes of a national park is to maintain natural ecological balance and succession. Excessive human intervention in the living environment of wild animals—such as artificial feeding, captivity, or frequent medical intervention—could instead disrupt the original appearance of nature and violate the professional ethics of national park management. Therefore, the park administration emphasized that it was not a "keeper" as regulated by the Animal Protection Act, and that the natural deaths caused by survival competition in nature and extreme weather should not be entirely attributed to administrative negligence by the management authority.

However, in adjudicating the case, the court did not fully adopt the park administration's defense of exemption from liability based on "complete feralization." Weighing the historical background, the park administration's past actual management practices regarding the cattle, the scope of fencing erected, and the general public's reasonable expectations of the national park in caring for the ecology, the judicial authorities determined that the park administration bore a substantial relationship of management and care with these water buffaloes both legally and factually. When facing the basic requirements for animal welfare under the Animal Protection Act, managers cannot completely exempt themselves from the basic humanitarian care and preventive obligations owed to animals in extreme conditions under the pretext of "respecting nature." After reviewing the case, the second-instance court held that the original disposition by the Taipei City Animal Protection Office was grounded in law, and that both its procedures and substantive determinations contained no errors. Therefore, the court dismissed the park administration's appeal, finalizing the case with no further appeals permitted.

The conclusion of this legal case not only confirms a single administrative decision, but also provides an important judicial precedent and a subject for reflection on the boundary issue of "wildlife versus human intervention" in Taiwan's national parks. Amid environmental changes and rising public awareness of animal protection, how national park management authorities strike a balance when caught in the tug-of-war between ecological conservation, natural succession, and animal welfare will be a major test. Excessive intervention may draw criticism for disrupting nature, but complete inaction may lead to legal liability and moral condemnation. Following this incident, the park administration will inevitably need to establish more comprehensive emergency response mechanisms to seek a more balanced approach between respecting the laws of nature and implementing animal protection, in order to prevent similar ecological tragedies and legal disputes from happening again.

(Source of facts: Central News Agency)