Court Opinion

ID: 9461739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:23:34.54298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:14.492742
License: Public Domain

McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur in points 1, 2 and 3 in the majority opinion. However, I dissent as to point 4 and would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In my view, the record shows that the denial of the request for a special use permit was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. It is abundantly clear to me that the Forest Service was of the view, which I believe to be a rational one, that, all things considered, a single permittee policy, as opposed to a multiple permittee policy, was more advantageous for all concerned, except possibly these plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, who in reality simply seek to benefit from the work of others. I believe it to be at least implicit in the Forest Service’s action that consideration was given the possible monopolistic and anticompetitive aspects of a single per-mittee policy and that the Forest Service nevertheless concluded that, from the standpoint of the general public, the single permittee policy was preferable to a multiple permittee policy.