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
6.
The author's reference to the
a
establish the earliest █████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ████ ██████████ ██ ██ ██ ███ █████ ██ ██████████
The author never suggests that they were on the brink of extinction, at this point in time or any other.
b
indicate that several ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ███ █████
Factually inaccurate. The Fur Seal Treaty doesn’t indicate anything about exemptions, because no exemptions are mentioned under that treaty. It prohibited the hunting of sea otters. That’s all we know.
c
demonstrate that there ██ █ ██████████ █████ █████████ ███ ███████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ███████
The author never brings up the idea of legal precedent for prohibiting hunting. The legal issues and court cases presented in the passage are all about how “tradition” is interpreted. Differing interpretations are discussed, but none of those interpretations involve the idea of legal precedent. Since the author doesn’t bring up legal precedent in the passage, his purpose in mentioning the Fur Seal Treaty can’t be to demonstrate the existence of any precedent.
d
suggest that the ███ █████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████ ███ ███ ██ ██████ ███████
All we know about the Fur Seal Treaty is that it was enacted in 1910 and prohibited the hunting of sea otters. Nothing there suggests that the population was imperiled by some individuals and not others.
e
help explain the █████████ ██ ██████ ████████ █████ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ██ █████████████
The author mentions the Fur Seal Treaty to let us know what the legal landscape looked like regarding animal protection before things got more complicated for Alaska Natives’ legal rights with the MMPA and the FWS. He’s setting the stage and explaining how the legal situation changed over time.