Self-study
P1
In Alaska, tradition is a powerful legal concept, appearing in a wide variety of legal contexts relating to natural-resource and public-lands activities. ████ █████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ██████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ██ █████████████ ██████████ █████ █████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ████████ █████ █████ ██ ██ █ ███████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████████████ █████ ████████
Problem ·
Failure to define "tradition" in statutes
Statutes in Alaska fail to define "tradition," which leads to problematic and inconsistent results.
P2
███ ██ ███ ████ █████████ █████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ████ █████████ ██ █████ ██ █████████████ █████████ █████ ███████████████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██ █ █████████ ███
Common legal understanding of "tradition" ·
Must be based on "long-standing" practice
"Long-standing" in terms of time, but also in continuity and regularity of a practice.
Examples of problem ·
Two court cases involving indigenous use of sea otter pelts
P3
███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██ ███
Context for the two court cases ·
Between 1910 and 1972, natives couldn't hunt sea otters
In 1972, a statute was passed allowing natives to hunt, but only for use in making authentic native articles by means of "traditional native handicrafts."
Additional context ·
Government agency didn't consider items made from sea otter pelts to be authentic native articles
This is because these items weren't made "within living memory." (Recall that sea otter hunting was prohibited for natives between 1910 and 1972.)
P4
██ █████ ███ ██████ ██████ ████████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ███ █████ █████ ████ ██████ ████████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ████████ █████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████████ ███
First court case ·
Government agency's interpretation was upheld
Second court case ·
Government agency's interpretation overturned
Court heard testimony showing that before Alaska was occupied, natives had used sea otters for many things. This showed that making stuff out of sea otter pelts was "traditional." The gov agency's interpretation of "traditional" was too narrow.
Passage Style
Problem-analysis
Single position
1.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████████
a
Two cases involving ███ ███ ██ ███ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ████████████ ███████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████
This is a good summary of both the problem described in P1-P2 (applying the legal concept of tradition in Alaska is difficult) and the illustration given in P3 (two cases involving sea otter pelts exemplify that difficulty).
b
Two court decisions ████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██████████████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ██ ██ █ █████████████ ████████ ████ ███ ████ █████████ ███ ███████████ ██████████
Descriptively inaccurate. Only
c
Two court cases █████████ ███ ███ ██ ███ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ███████ █████████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████████████ ███ ████████████ ████████████
Descriptively inaccurate. The author doesn’t suggest that a “wave” of other lawsuits are occurring or will occur. He also doesn’t suggest that any lawsuits were or are in response to regulatory changes. The only two lawsuits discussed in the passage were in response to existing regulations, not changing regulations.
d
Definitions of certain █████ █████ ████ █████ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██████████ ███████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██████ ████████
Descriptively inaccurate. The definitions of “traditional” and “authentic native articles” are at issue, but they aren’t being reviewed—they were simply rejected (in one court decision, anyway). And they weren’t rejected in light of new evidence from historical sources (e.g., newly discovered historical documents or new archaeological evidence). The author just says they were rejected based on modern “
e
Alaskan state laws ███ ████ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ████████████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ████████ █████████
This gets the problem wrong. The problem the author raises isn’t about how sensitive any laws are to anyone’s concerns; it’s about the unclear definition of tradition and the difficulty in applying “tradition” as a legal concept.