DISCUSSION: The 1986 case was the one that ruled the government was correct to ban the use of sea otter pelts.
So the 1986 court must have believed that the “in living memory” standard was correct.
- There was no compromise in 1986. The court ruled that the FWS was entirely correct to prosecute the natives.
- CORRECT. “Continuity and regularity” is mentioned in paragraph two, and line 34 then specifies that FWS interpreted “continuity and regularity” to mean “within living memory”.Because the court agreed with the FWS, they must have agreed that using sea otter pelts was not a continual and regular tradition.
- Most people would not say that traditional means “within living memory”. The court in 1986 defied common understanding of the word traditional.
- Actually, the court did not think “traditional” applied to the age-old activity of sea otter pelt usage, because there was a gap in the tradition. Further, the court didn’t indicate that tradition should refer to any recent activities.
- The court in 1986 didn’t reflect the concerns of Alaska Natives. It said their activities were not traditional.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions