The court in the 1991 case referred to the FWS's interpretation of the term "traditional" as "strained" (line 46) bec...

Irina on November 8, 2019

@Meredith,

That's right! The district court in 1991 found that FWS's regulations were based on a "strained interpretation" of the word "traditional," and that the reference to "living memory" imposed an excessively restrictive time frame. In the second paragraph, the passage tells us that tradition is commonly interpreted to be based on the long-standing practice that is also regular and continuous (lines 13-18), hence the FWS's regulation requiring the custom to be practiced "within the living memory." The district court in 1991 rejects this interpretation finding that just because the Alaskan natives were prevented from exercising a tradition for a given period of time ..[due to Russian occupation]..it does not mean the practice can no longer qualify as 'traditional' (lines 49-57)..and if "defies common sense to define 'traditional' in such a way." These lines allow us to conclude that the court held that the FWS's interpretation was inconsistent with what the term "traditional" is normally understood to mean (C), i.e. it defines common sense.

Let me know if you have any other questions.