as a whole

In determining legislative intent, we must consider the statute read as a whole. United States v. Morton, [1984] USSC 140; 467 U.S. 822, 828[1984] USSC 140; , 104 S.Ct. 2769, 2773[1984] USSC 140; , 81 L.Ed.2d 680 (1984); Sierra Club v. Clark, [1985] USCA8 115; 755 F.2d 608, 613 (8th Cir.1985). United States v Jones [1987] USCA8 142; 811 F.2d 444 (10 February 1987) Infact it may be noted that:" interpretation, begins with and is circumscribed by the statute's text. Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 818 (1999); Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., [1980] USSC 104; 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980). If "the statute, as a whole, clearly expresses Congress' intention," our role is to effectuate that intention. Dunn v. CFTC, [1997] USSC 18; 519 U.S. 465, 479 (1997) (emphasis added) (citation omitted); FTC v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., [1960] USSC 99; 363 U.S. 536, 553 (1960).

“…..read as a whole, clearly expresses Congress's intent to create a federal regulatory scheme "to protect the resources related to subsistence needs" and "to provide the opportunity for rural residents engaged in a subsistence way of life to continue to do so." 16 U.S.C. §§ 3101(b)-(c); see also id. §§§§ 3111-3114. To that end, Congress mandated that "the taking on public lands of fish and wildlife for nonwasteful subsistence uses shall be accorded priority over the taking on such lands of fish and wildlife for other purposes. " Id. §§ 3114. Congress expressly protected as subsistence uses "the customary and traditional uses by Alaska residents . . . for direct personal or family consumption as food" and for barter in exchange for other subsistence commodities. Id. §§ 3113 (emphasis added)."2001] USCA9 284