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
the intro to environmental law course i took in undergrad is finally paying off
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?
Seals are literally my favorite animal. Leave them alone
@cmhrandall593 no
this is so boring and hard for me to get through
I'm actually finding this topic pretty interesting lol