C.F.R. » Title 50 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER C—THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM › PART 27—PROHIBITED ACTS › Subpart I—Other Disturbing Violations

50 C.F.R. § 27.97

Private operations

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Soliciting business or conducting a commercial enterprise on any national wildlife refuge is prohibited except as may be authorized by special permit.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: McGrail & Rowley v. Babbitt, 986 F. Supp. 1386 (S.D. Fla. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McGrail & Rowley v. Babbitt, 986 F. Supp. 1386 (S.D. Fla. 1997). · cites it 3× “A FWS regulation, specifically 50 C.F.R. § 27.97 , provides that “conducting a commercial enterprise on any national wildlife refuge is prohibited except as may be authorized by special use permit.”
United States v. Kenner, 238 F. Supp. 3d 1157 (D. Neb. 2017). “” • 50 C.F.R. § 27.97 (COUNT 4): “[Conducting a commercial enterprise on any national wildlife refuge is prohibited except as may be authorized by special permit.”
Niobrara River Ranch, L.L.C. v. Huber, 277 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (D. Neb. 2003). · cites it 2× “50 C.F.R. § 27.97 (2002) (emphasis added).”
Roseana E.D. Palmer v. Mariana Stones Corp., & Does 1 through 10, 2021 Guam 5 (Guam 2021). · cites it 2× “3 According to those USFWS notices, MSC violated 50 C.F.R. § 27.97 , which states: “Private operations.”
Defenders of Wildlife v. US Fish & Wildlife Serv. (D.S.C. 2021). · cites it 5× “§ 668dd(d)(3)(A)(I); (2) failing to issue the commercial harvesters a special use permit authorizing such commercial activities, see 50 C.F.R. § 27.97 ; and (3) failing to ensure that its management of Cape Romain will provide for the conservation of wildlife and will not…”
Protect The Peninsula's Future v. Haaland (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 5× “50 C.F.R. § 27.97 . 7 The Service has not completed a compatibility determination for the proposed 8 oyster farm nor has it issued a special use permit.”
State of South Carolina v. Haaland (D.S.C. 2024). · cites it 2× “In other words, this Court disagreed with the Service that the 1991 Lease prevented it from complying with 50 C.F.R. § 27.97 , which provides that “conducting a commercial enterprise on any national wildlife refuge is prohibited except as may be authorized by special permit.”
State of South Carolina v. Haaland (D.S.C. 2024). · cites it 2× “In other words, this Court disagreed with the Service that the 1991 Lease prevented it from complying with 50 C.F.R. § 27.97 , which provides that “conducting a commercial enterprise on any national wildlife refuge is prohibited except as may be authorized by special permit.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.