The low res summary (LRS) indicates that "FWS argues natives' handicrafts were not traditional." I don't think that's the case for this LRS - the passage states that sea otter pelts were not to be used, but that doesn't mean other parts of the animals couldn't be used if it was part of a handicraft, what about bones from sea otters for small blades for example? I feel like the LRS takes a step to far in saying that the FWS didn't argued that natives' handicrafts were not traditional, just the pelts, at least that what I got from it, am I mis-reading this?
6 comments
Seals are literally my favorite animal. Leave them alone
@cmhrandall593 no
the intro to environmental law course i took in undergrad is finally paying off
this is so boring and hard for me to get through
I'm actually finding this topic pretty interesting lol
The low res summary (LRS) indicates that "FWS argues natives' handicrafts were not traditional." I don't think that's the case for this LRS - the passage states that sea otter pelts were not to be used, but that doesn't mean other parts of the animals couldn't be used if it was part of a handicraft, what about bones from sea otters for small blades for example? I feel like the LRS takes a step to far in saying that the FWS didn't argued that natives' handicrafts were not traditional, just the pelts, at least that what I got from it, am I mis-reading this?