Self-paced
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
5.
Which one of the following ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████
a
Between 1910 and █████ ██████ ███████ ████ ██████████ ████ ███████ ███ ███████
Strongly supported. Hunting sea otters was prohibited as of
b
Traditional items made ████ ███ █████ █████ ████ ████████████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ █████
Unsupported. The author doesn’t say anything about how the MMPA dealt (or didn’t deal) with sea otter pelts specifically. We’re only told about the MMPA in very broad strokes: it allowed Alaska Natives to use “protected animals” for traditional handicrafts.
c
In the late ██████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ ███████ ███ ███████
Unsupported. The 1991 court case does suggest that during the
d
By 1972, the ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██████
Unsupported. The author doesn’t discuss population sizes.
e
Prior to the ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ████████
Unsupported comparison. We’re told that Alaska Natives made “many” uses of sea otters prior to the late 1700s. But nothing in the passage indicates how often they, or any other marine animals, were hunted.