To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to protect the cultural practices and livelihoods of producers of Alaska Native handicrafts and marine mammal ivory products, and for other purposes, section 2, Sec. 2.
Written by .
A taking may not be wasteful
The document says “shall not”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“(ii) in each case, is not accomplished in a wasteful manner.”
A second condition, and it rides on both purposes: the words in each case tie it to the subsistence taking and the handicrafts taking alike. A taking accomplished in a wasteful manner falls outside the exemption. This Act does not define wasteful manner.
What the document actually says
“(ii) in each case, is not accomplished in a wasteful manner.”
That sentence, in plain words
The hunt may not waste the animal. That holds for both reasons above.
What this is about
This test comes on top of the reason for the hunt. A wasteful hunt is not covered at all. The law does not say here what waste means.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The quotation is the document's own words, exactly as printed, and we check the page
number against the Act itself before publishing. The paragraph underneath is our summary,
not the document's words. So is the plain English version, which is why it sits beside the
quotation rather than replacing it.
