Abstract
Commentators have suggested that federal judges who review federal natural resource agencies' management decisions sometimes substitute their own preferences for agencies' decisions. We used four competing judicial decision-making models to test this assertion. We analyzed all published cases decided by the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 1970 to 1997 in which a federal natural resource agency was the defendant in a case involving natural resource statutes. All four models significantly classified judges' opinions on the model developmental data. However, when we validated the models on independent data, only the attitudinal model was statistically significant. The results establish that while facts and precedent are important, judges respond to multiple stimuli when making decisions. This research empirically demonstrates that some judges do not function as objective decision makers in some natural resource management cases, and develops variables and models researchers can use to investigate how the legal system affects natural resources management.