recommended that: (a) the data obtained as a result of the 

 regulations should be summarized each year in the annual report 

 which the Fish and Wildlife Service submits to Congress under 

 the Marine Mammal Protection Act; (b) the penalty provisions 

 of the regulations should apply to the transport and export 

 of unregistered marine mammal parts; and (c) a cost-effective, 

 administratively flexible approach should be established for 

 designating the villages where authorized Service represen- 

 tatives would be stationed for marking, tagging, and reporting 

 purposes. 



Final regulations were published by the Service on 28 

 June 1988. The regulations require Alaska Natives, within 30 

 days of the taking, to report the take of polar bears, walrus, 

 and sea otters and to present for marking or tagging specified 

 animal parts. Polar bear and sea otter skins and skulls and 

 walrus tusks must all be marked or tagged. Reports must 

 include, among other things, the date and location of the 

 take and the sex of the animal taken. Parts from these three 

 marine mammal species taken between 21 December 1972 (the date 

 the Marine Mammal Protection Act was enacted) and 26 October 

 1988 (the effective date of the regulations) and which have 

 not yet been converted into handicrafts must be presented for 

 marking by 24 April 1989. Possession or transportation of 

 unmarked marine mammal parts, except as authorized in the 

 regulations, will constitute a violation of the Act. 



Litigation 



In a lawsuit filed in 1985 ( Katelnikof f 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 



176 



