Mausolf v. Babbitt

125 F.3d 661 (1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 951 (1998)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Mausolf v. Babbitt

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
125 F.3d 661 (1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 951 (1998)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

Jeffrey Mausolf and other snowmobiling enthusiasts (snowmobilers) (plaintiffs) engaged in snowmobiling at Voyageurs National Park (park). The National Park Service (park service) (defendant) oversaw the park and had regulatory objectives including protection of natural resources pursuant to its statutory authority granted by the United States Congress. In 1991, the park service proposed a wilderness plan that reduced the park areas available for snowmobiling. In 1992, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Fish and Wildlife) provided the park service with a biological opinion regarding the effects of snowmobiling on animal populations in the park, including the gray wolf population. Fish and Wildlife concluded that snowmobiling disrupted wolves while hunting prey and could lead to significant negative effects if frequent disruptions occurred although isolated disruptions were insignificant. Later in 1992, the park service closed many of the park’s areas to snowmobiling. In 1994, Fish and Wildlife supplemented its previous biological opinion. The supplemented biological opinion stated that the closures to snowmobiling were intended to minimize the harassment and taking of gray wolves and to reduce adverse contact between humans and wolves. Fish and Wildlife reasoned that snowmobiles provided access to remote wolf-habitat areas although the snowmobiles themselves did not adversely impact the gray wolf. Several incidents of harassment and harm to gray wolves constituting takings had been reported within the several years prior to the 1994 supplement to the biological opinion, and in each incident, access to the gray wolf habitat was gained by a motorized vehicle, such as a snowmobile. The snowmobilers sued the park service, claiming that its closures of areas to snowmobiling was arbitrary and capricious because Fish and Wildlife’s biological opinion did not support such closures. The Voyageurs Region Park Association (association) intervened in the action. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the snowmobilers and enjoined the enforcement of the snowmobiling restrictions. The association appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Bowman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 736,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership