Litigation 



In a lawsuit filed in 1985 ( Katelnikoff v. U.S. Department 

 of the Interior ) , an Alaska Native challenged the validity of 

 the Fish and Wildlife Service's regulatory definition of 

 "authentic Native articles of handicraft and clothing." That 

 definition requires that, in order to qualify for the Marine 

 Mammal Protection Act's Native-take exemption, handicraft 

 articles fashioned from marine mammal parts and products must 

 have been "commonly produced on or before December 21, 1972." 

 The plaintiff's complaint alleged that the cutoff date has no 

 basis in the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 



The litigation arose as a result of a seizure by Fish and 

 Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service enforce- 

 ment agents of several articles of handicraft made by the 

 plaintiff out of sea otter skins. The items — which included 

 teddy bears, hats and mittens, fur flowers, and pillows — were 

 confiscated because there is no record indicating that such 

 articles were commonly produced by Alaska Natives before the 

 regulatory cutoff date. The plaintiff claimed that, by seizing 

 these items, the Federal Government deprived her of the right 

 to take marine mammals for handicraft purposes. A second 

 plaintiff, whose sea otter handicrafts had also been seized 

 by Fish and Wildlife Service agents, intervened in the proceed- 

 ing, adopting the legal arguments of the original plaintiff. 



On 21 July 1986, the U.S. District Court for the District 

 of Alaska issued a decision in favor of the Fish and Wildlife 

 Service. Relying on both the express provisions and the legis- 

 lative history of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Court 

 held that it was a reasonable exercise of the Service's author- 

 ity to establish a 1972 cutoff date as part of its regulations. 

 The question of whether the seized handicrafts of the original 

 plaintiff were commonly produced by Alaska Natives prior to 

 the regulatory cutoff date is expected to be reviewed in an 

 administrative proceeding. 



The intervenor, on 13 October 1987, raised a new challenge 

 to the validity of the regulatory definition of "authentic 

 Native articles of handicrafts and clothing," claiming that 

 the regulation is unconstitutionally vague because it is unclear 

 what handicrafts were produced prior to 21 December 1972. At 

 the end of 1987, the court had not ruled on whether it would 

 hear the new argument. 



77 



