You are here

Appellate Court Affirms National Park Service Immunity In Deadly Mountain Goat Attack

Share
Mountain goat, Olympic National Park/NPS

An appellate court has upheld the National Park Service's immunity in the fatal goring of a hiker by a mountain goat/NPS

A split appellate court has upheld the National Park Service's immunity in a case from Olympic National Park where a hiker was fatally gored by an aggressive mountain goat, though the dissenting judge thought the Park Service had been negligent in not killing the "a horned animal bigger than an NFL lineman" before the goring and so was not immune.

Susan Chadd, the wife of of 63-year-old Robert Boardman, had filed a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against the Park Service over his death in Olympic in October 2010. He was protecting other hikers from a goat, estimated at 370 pounds, when it gored him in the thigh and then reportedly stood over him as he bled to death.

An investigation into the park's handling of the case by the law firm the family retained turned up documentation that the goat, known locally as "Klahhane Billy," had established a pattern of "aggressive behavior towards Park Service employees, experienced hikers, Boy Scout troops, (and) families with children." While the park staff took various approaches to instill a fear of humans into the goat, including shooting bean bags at it and paint balls so it could be tracked, none worked, the law firm alleged.

While the majority ruling (attached) from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 2-1 decision noted that Olympic officials were aware that the mountain goat had been exhibiting aggressive behavior towards hikers, the judges also pointed out that those officials had wide discretion in deciding how to deal with the goat.

... Olympic’s Mountain Goat Action Plan lists three forms of hazing as appropriate incident management techniques, but it does not specify how or when they should be deployed. The Mountain Goat Action Plan does not even mention animal destruction, in contrast with the Cougar Action Plan. There was, therefore, no extant statute, regulation, or policy directive that required Park officials to destroy the goat prior to Boardman’s death.

... Chadd might very well be correct that Park officials abused their discretion in a tortious manner, but, at step one of the discretionary-function-exception analysis, all that matters is that there was, in fact, discretion.

In his dissent, Senior Circuit Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld maintained park officials were indeed negligent in not killing an animal they knew posed a threat to hikers.

"Letting an identified aggressive 370-pound goat threaten park visitors and rangers for years until it killed one amounted to a failure to implement the formally established park policy for managing dangerous animals. Written park policy provided a series of steps for dealing with animals dangerous to park visitors, from frightening the animal away to removing or killing it," he wrote. "The park had used the earlier steps, including repeatedly shooting the goat with nonlethal loads such as beanbags, but they did not work. Yet the superintendent left the animal free to terrorize tourists for another summer season instead of following the next step of the written policy, removing or killing it."

In conclusion, Judge Kleinfeld wrote , "This case is analogous to the routine tort case, where a homeowner has a fierce dog that has attacked people and bitten one, but does not get rid of the dog until after it has torn some child’s face off. This was 'ordinary garden variety negligence' that the government must compensate, not 'decisions of social, economic, or political policy' for which the statute preserves its immunity."

Comments

I can't understand how a judge can compare a wild animal in its natural habitat to that of an aggressive dog whose owner didn't properly handle. This is a wild animal and any human entering a national park should understand that and keep clear of it. The mans actions in protecting others was heroic, but ultimately his decision and not the parks fault.


at some point, man has to be responsible for his actions. Especially when he/she does follow the rules


It is the duty of these parks to maintain a safe environment for both the animals and the humans. Animals that show aggression towards people cannot be allowed to continue to do so.

Every other park puts bears to rest for attacking camp grounds. This case should be no different.


I think the park should do away with all the mountain goats. These animals are not native to the Olympics. And this attack will happen again, and again, how many people will die because these goats who have no fear of humans at all. Even the bears and mountain lions fear humans in the Olympic mountains. Maybe a hunting season on them, like hunting is allowed on most of the peninsula on bears, cougars, elk and deer.


The professionals at Olympic National Park have experimented with many non-lethal methods of controlling mountain goats with marginal success. Capture and release, sterilization - expensive, stressful for the animal, and dangerous to the people performing the act. An inexpensive and effective method is using experienced archers to kill the goats. Safer than guns, quiet to preserve the wilderness experience, and can be very discrete. Deer control programs in urban areas using archers have been very successful. Highly experienced archers are masters of camouflage and take pride in making killing shots. Stop wasting precious resources looking for the perfect non-lethal method - it does not exist. It's time to make the hard decision that you've been putting off for decades. Yes there will be people who object to killing these animals, but it's the right thing to do to protect this ecosystem and park visitors.


Since you're "not native" to the Olympics, perhaps you should stay away.


Judge Kleinfeld is correct, on merit. The agency was negligent. This was a known, documented and long-term hazard, which was mismanaged. No different than a hazard tree program. You could argue that "monitoring" a hazard tree in a campground would be "management" and that no one could say when it would fall; however, professionals are paid to make sound decisions, which are in the public interest. The park failed in its responsibilities and now is using law (discretionary function) to avoid its responsibilities to a surviving family. This case reminds us of the recent shameful treatment of the family of Tommy Botell, who died when the NPS failed to manage that known hazard in Lassen National Park, then covered up, lied and did everything to avoid responsibility. This case is no different. If we fail, own up to it, make it right and use the case to fuel improvement. Our actions in this case are disgraceful...


Agree...


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.