An Administrative History of Rainbow Bridge National Monument (Chapter 5) (2024)

Rainbow BridgeA Bridge Between Cultures: An Administrative History of Rainbow Bridge National Monument

After Rainbow Bridge became part of the national park system, it wasnot long before it was caught up in numerous controversies. Immediatelyafter the bridge was mapped and made a monument, members of theCummings/Douglass expedition were embroiled in arguments over whichwhite man saw the bridge first and which Paiute guide actually knew theway to the bridge. But the significance of Rainbow Bridge to certainNative American groups also became the subject of controversy. Given thehistoric presence of Native Americans near Rainbow Bridge, it was only amatter of time before the interests of Indian groups clashed with theinterests of the monument's federal managers. While many peoples, suchas the Hopi and the San Juan Paiute, considered Rainbow Bridge importantto their origin stories, the most strenuous claims to the bridge'ssacred status have been made by the Navajo Nation. These claims wereeventually part of litigation that affected the way the National ParkService currently manages the monument. This chapter will detail theNavajo origin story as it pertains to Rainbow Bridge and identify therelationship between those beliefs and various lawsuits filed by theNavajo Nation to protect them. In addition, this chapter will explorethe outcome of those lawsuits as pertains to NPS management policy atRainbow Bridge.

While Anglo culture appreciated Rainbow Bridge for its aestheticbeauty and geologic uniqueness, Navajos have identified Rainbow Bridgeas a sacred, religious site. They believe it is integral to the story oftheir emergence into this world. The ingress of Native American peoplesto the Rainbow Bridge area provides some of the data to support Navajoclaims to cultural and historical preeminence in the region. The hearthlocated at the foot of the bridge, excavated by Park Servicearcheologists in 1994, suggests a definite and early Native Americanawareness of the bridge. The non-secular cultural characteristics ofthese ancestral Puebloans also allows contemporary scholars to at leastargue that the bridge was a source of worship during the last 1,500years. But the incorporation of Rainbow Bridge in Navajo religiousbeliefs is more readily documented than suppositions concerningancestral Puebloans. One of the problems associated with examining thissubject is the set of academic standards in place that mitigates theveracity of Navajo claims on Rainbow Bridge. Too many historians demanda degree of quantitative proof that cultures who rely on oral traditioncannot provide. Neil Judd's comments in 1924 regarding the doublestandard of Anglo history were especially prescient with respect toNavajo religious claims on Rainbow Bridge.

Unfortunately, quantitative standards for proof do not mesh easilywith the qualitative study of Native American religion. To understandthe Navajo conception of the religious and cultural significance ofRainbow Bridge, one must make use of different conceptions about whatmerits belief and about what constitutes a legitimate belief structure.This is less problematic when coupled to the physical evidence thatverifies a long-standing Navajo cultural tradition at Rainbow Bridge.That evidence includes detailed oral histories that document a patternof religious belief involving the bridge; detailed descriptions of aprimitive altar at the base of Rainbow Bridge prior to 1930; and,physical evidence of early Navajo existence in the region. What isimportant to remember is that one need not agree with the tradition thatinvolves Rainbow Bridge religion in order for that tradition to havemerit to Navajos. Their beliefs are as circumambient to them as the airthey breath.

Part of the larger Navajo origin story includes the importance of thefour sacred mountains. When First Man (Áltsé Hastiin) andFirst Woman (Áltsé Asdzáá) emerged into theFourth World they created the four sacred mountains. After the firstfour Navajo clans emerged from a subsequent global flood, they movedinto the area bounded by these four mountains. This was the originalDinétah (Navajo country). Those mountains are recognized today asSan Francisco Peak, Gobernador Peak, Mount Taylor, and Mount Blanca.Some scholars argue that the Navajo origin story reveals much about theontology of the Navajo people. The importance of place and therelationship of place to spirituality is evidenced in the four sacredmountains. The full account of the origin story reveals dozens ofplace-specific episodes that can be recognized in modern geography.Every nation, the Navajo included, has found tremendous nationalistspirit in places and place-specific events. [203] The Navajo belief structure is one thatcannot be separated from the natural world. Mountains, water, andvarious natural features imbue their religion just as edifices andgeographies underpin Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. The Navajo originstory also informs their value structure and social organization. It isnot hard to discern the Navajo desire for order and their devotion toclan-based politics from their story of the world's beginning. The factthat Navajos pray to certain gods and assign importance to the locationin which those prayers take place only evidences their dedication topolytheism in the face of other people's commitment to monotheism. Itcertainly does not mitigate their value structure on a comparativelevel; after all, much of the world's current population ispolytheistic.

For this administrative history, oral interviews with residents ofthe Navajo Mountain community were conducted to elaborate on the role ofRainbow Bridge in the origin story. These interviews revealed much ofthe common belief in Rainbow Bridge as an instrument of spirituality andreligious significance. Most of the interviewees had lived in the NavajoMountain/Rainbow Bridge area their entire lives, as had their parentsand grandparents. The stories they shared form the basis of thetraditional origin story detailed below. [204] In this account, the first people wereborn in the Black world, home to spirits and holy men.Áltsé Hastiin (First Man) was born in the east out of aunion between the white cloud and the black cloud. Born with him was DooHonoot'ínii (the first seed corn). In the west, yellow cloud andblue cloud met and made Áltsé Asdzáá (FirstWoman). She arrived with yellow corn, white shell, and turquoise.Cooperation was a virtue in the Black World, demonstrated by InsectBeings. Other beings also lived in the Black World, including WaspPeople, Bat People, Ant People, and Spider Woman. But infighting andbickering led all these beings to move up to the Blue World. Theycarried with them all the evils of the Black World.

In the Blue World, beings from the Black World found new beings,including large insects, feathered beings, wolves, and mountain lions.After much quarreling, Áltsé Hastiin conducted ritualprayers and feasts so all the beings could proceed to the Yellow World.In the Yellow World, there were six mountains and no sun. The originaltravelers also discovered snakes, squirrels, and deer. Unfortunately,Coyote came to this world with Áltsé Hastiin andÁltsé Asdzáá. In the Yellow World, Coyotecaused problems. The inhabitants of this world watched as the cloudsbegan to gather, first in the east, then the south, west, and north. Theclouds came together and rain began to fall. The water rose all aroundthem. They knew they must escape to the Fourth World to avoid drowning.They planted many different tree species, hoping one would grow tallenough for them to climb up and escape the flood. After each tree provedtoo short, they planted a giant reed, which grew into the heavens.Locust volunteered to lead the group to safety. They moved up the hollowcore of the reed to safety.

Unfortunately, Coyote decided to cause mischief during the escape. AsCoyote watched the rising water, he noticed the child ofTééhooltsódii (Water Monster). Coyote decided hewanted to keep the child and raise it as his own. He took the child andhid him from Tééhooltsódii. In response,Tééhooltsódii made the waters rise up the reedbehind the group, which threatened to drown everyone. The group pleadedwith Coyote to give the child back toTééhooltsódii. After pleading with Coyote fourtimes, Coyote released the child. To appease Water Baby's parents, thegroup made offerings to Tééhooltsódii and the waterreceded enough for the group to escape. At this time, the GlitteringWorld was inhabited by gods and spirits. There were no humans. Locustsurveyed the land after emergence and found it covered with water. BigHorn Sheep dug canyons with his horns so the water could escape to theocean. This is how canyons were formed. Locust then decided that firesshould be lit so the gods would know of the group's presence. It was inthis world that the first sweat bath was taken and the first hogan wasbuilt. The stars were placed in the great sky. In the Glittering Worlddeveloped the seasons and the harvest. When the first emergents spiedNavajo Mountain in the distance, they regarded it as the Head of theEarth.

It was at this point that two of the most important figures in Navajoreligion appeared: the Hero Twins. After the first fires were lit,Áltsé Hastiin and Áltsé Asdzáánoticed tracks that led to the west. Part of the group decided to followthe tracks. The tracks were left by White Shell Woman's children, bornto her after the Sun committed adultery with her before the emergence.These children are known to the Navajo as the Hero Twins:Naayéé' Neizgh´ní (Monster Slayer) andT&ocaute; Baj&icaute;sh Chini (Born For Water). To travel to the westernoceans and visit White Shell Woman, the group used rainbows to covergreat distances. As the group proceeded west, they encountered the manymonsters and evil spirits that were byproducts of the Sun's adultery.After visiting White Shell Woman in the west, the group returned withthe Hero Twins, hoping they would grow up to battle the monsters andevil spirits.

Once they had returned to the Navajo Mountain area, holy men from thegroup placed the magic rainbow in the safest place they could: BridgeCanyon, below Navajo Mountain. The rainbow then turned to stone. MonsterSlayer and Born For Water were raised in the cradle of Bridge Creek andthe stone rainbow formed the protective handle of their cradle board.After they reached maturity, and discovered the Sun was their father,they traveled to visit him. They used the rock rainbow to ease theirjourney. The Sun tested his sons thoroughly during their trip andrewarded each of them with a weapon so they could battle the monsters.To Monster Slayer the Sun gave Lightning That Strikes Crooked. Born ForWater received Lightning That Flashes Straight. The twins returned homeand defeated most of the monsters. The monsters that were allowed tosurvive personified old age, lice, hunger, and death.

Monster Slayer and Born For Water went again to visit with the Sun.This time, the Sun gave them gifts from the four directions. In exchangefor giving them these gifts, the Sun received the ability to destroy allbeings who lived in houses. This was very important as many of thesurviving monsters were children of the Sun. The Sun precipitated animmense flood which covered the earth and destroyed most living things.The Holy People saved one man and one woman and pairs of all theanimals. In the wake of the flood, AsdzááNádleehé (Changing Woman) established the first fourclans: Kiiyaa'áanii (Towering House), Honágháahnii(One Who walks Around You), Tó Dích'íi'nii (BitterWater), and Hashtl'ishnii (Mud). The four clans settled inside the areabounded by the four scared mountains.

All of the residents of the Navajo Mountain community interviewed forthis administrative history detailed the same origin story. The onlydeviations that occurred were in the minute details that somerespondents were hesitant to reveal. These people consider those detailspart of their identity as a people and therefore not open to publicconsumption. The Navajo are still very much an oral culture. The lessonscontained in the entire origin story are meant to serve as lessons forNavajo children. What specific substances were offered to which gods orthe details of various ceremonies are told from Navajo parents andgrandparents to Navajo youth, not to whites or other interested parties.The Navajos interviewed for this history spoke often about culturalownership and identity regarding their stories. But Anglomisunderstanding of Navajo life ways has a long history.

The clan-based Navajo socio-political structure was at odds withAnglo (mis)conceptions of Native Americans at least as early as the 19thcentury. Navajo tribal historian Bill Acrey, tracing the development ofthe modern Navajo nation, found that the initial contact between Anglosand the Diné was laden with the classic repugnance of Angloattempts to mold Navajos into yeoman farmers. [205] In the period between 1846 and 1860 therewere more than five separate treaties of peace, all initiated by UnitedStates military commanders in response to livestock and slave raidingconducted by the Diné. Each of these treaties contained someprovision which demanded Navajos stop raiding and embrace the farmingethic of the expanding United States. The lack of cultural understandingon the part of military personnel led to the demise of every treaty. Forexample, the Treaty of Ojo del Oso in 1848 forbade the Diné fromraiding into New Mexico settlements because the United States was nolonger at war with the Mexicans. This made no sense to Dinéleaders because the Diné believed that an enemy was always anenemy regardless of political climate. American treaty negotiatorscontinually made the assumption that there was some central form ofleadership among the Diné. American military personnel assumedthat those Diné leaders who signed the various treatiesrepresented all the Diné. Nothing could have been further fromthe truth. The Diné signatories knew that they only representedtheir individual bands and that those bands not represented in signatureon the treaty would never abide by its terms. These were just a few ofthe cultural misunderstandings that occurred between 1846 and 1860.

In 1863, the enmity that had formed between the Diné and theU.S. military culminated in the Bosque Redondo War and the militarydefeat of the Diné. Leading a scorched earth campaign, Kit Carsonbrought the Diné to their knees by late 1863. At that point, allthe Diné that could be rounded up were marched through the wintermonths and incarcerated at the Bosque Redondo reservation, located atthe newly erected Fort Sumner. The Diné endured four years ofstarvation and disease but persevered to a palatable solution. In 1868,the Diné successfully negotiated the Treaty of Bosque Redondo andwere allowed to return to their ancestral homelands. The red rock mesasand canyons that the Navajo returned to formed the original Navajoreservation. In addition, the treaty stipulated that livestock would bereturned to the Diné. As a result of both perseverance andexcellent husbandry techniques, Navajo and livestock populationsincreased every year after the incarceration at Fort Sumner.

In every region of the Navajo Nation's current geography, the originstory has its permutations. To the western Navajo, Rainbow Bridge andNavajo Mountain are an integral part of the origin story. Both locationsare also key elements in various ceremonies conducted by Navajo singersor medicine men. There have been numerous attempts to document the roleof Rainbow Bridge in Navajo religious belief. In the early 1970s, whenLake Powell waters started encroaching on the bridge, a group of Navajosingers filed suit to protect their religious freedom. The specificclaims of that suit are dealt with later in this chapter. As a result ofthe suit, however, a stunning piece of oral history was collected. In aneffort to put into writing what had long been oral culture and custom, agroup of Navajo singers provided their oral histories to Karl W.Luckert, an ethnohistorian from the Museum of Northern Arizona. [206] The result was a sincere attempt to dojustice to the Navajo tradition involving Rainbow Bridge in a form thatnon-Navajos would see as legitimate.

Like most ethnohistorians, Luckert tried to place the religioussignificance of Rainbow Bridge and Navajo Mountain in the properhistorical context. For many of the Navajo singers interviewed as partof Luckert's project, Rainbow Bridge and Navajo Mountain were consideredsanctuary from the ravages of Kit Carson's campaign against theDiné. At the time, many Navajos still held fresh memories oftribal experiences with the United States military and of theincarceration at Fort Sumner. But there were many Navajos who eludedCarson and avoided Fort Sumner altogether. Those Navajos hid in thenumerous canyons of northern New Mexico and southern Utah. In additionto the role of the bridge in Navajo emergence, the added element ofsanctuary endeared both Navajo Mountain and Rainbow Bridge tocontemporary Navajos. It was in those terms that Luckert's intervieweesfigured Navajo Mountain and Rainbow Bridge as key fixtures in the storyof Monster Slayer. The Navajo people refer to their sacred mountain inthe northwest of their reservation not as "Navajo" Mountain but asNaatsis'áán (Earth Head). [207]

In the oral histories collected by Luckert, all the interviewees toldbasically the same story with regard to Navajo Mountain and RainbowBridge as those stories collected in 2000 for this administrativehistory. The origin story that was taught to Navajo singers includedNavajo Mountain and Rainbow Bridge. That story also included the moderndetails of a group of Navajos attempting to evade the United Statesmilitary. Fleeing Navajos perceived the fortuitous location of NavajoMountain as a sign that their gods were watching over them. Theyperceived the canyons of the region to be gifts from Head of Earth.Whatever their motivations or proclivities, the fact is that all Navajosingers interviewed by Luckert couched their origin story in thebenevolence of Navajo Mountain and the peculiar beauty of RainbowBridge. Each interviewee recalled in some form that in the days whenhumankind was born, Monster Slayer was transferred and born and raisedin Bridge Canyon. When the Navajo were threatened, Monster Slayer(clothed in an armor of flint) and the Head of the Earth placedthemselves as shields between the Navajo and Kit Carson. This eventstill echoes in the formalized Protectionway prayers of contemporarysingers. [208]

Dozens of ceremonies were and still are conducted at Rainbow Bridge.The most common ceremonies conducted there during the period ofLuckert's interviews were Protectionway, Blessingway, andrain-requesting. [209] In a 1974 affidavitfiled as part of a larger suit to remove Lake Powell waters from BridgeCanyon, Navajo singer Nakai Ditloi recounted the tradition of NavajoMountain and Rainbow Bridge:

I have conducted countless religious ceremonies and sings throughoutthe area surrounding Rainbow Bridge and Navajo Mountain. Rainbow Bridgeis extremely sacred to the Diné, as are many of the sites andmuch of the area surrounding the Bridge. The water from the lake hasalready entered the Canyon of the Rainbow Bridge and has covered thegrounds sacred to the Diné.

When the Diné were emerging from the east they stopped at alarge mesa near Navajo Mountain to make a home on the mountain forLageinayal. He is the god who was given lightning to create rain. Hisname means "came into being one day." In gratitude for his home onNavajo Mountain, Lageinayal promised to protect the Diné and lookafter their well being. Sometime later, a group of the Diné leftthis home with a god named Danaiize. He has the power to create and totravel on the rainbow. The Diné reached a canyon which they couldnot cross. Danaiize told them he would create a rock rainbow which wouldbe a bridge for the Diné. It was in this way that the Dinéwere able to cross the Canyon of the Rainbow Bridge. [210]

Much of this interpretation is confirmed in the oral historiescollected by Luckert. Floyd Laughter, another Navajo singer, recountedthat "the Rainbow was left for prayer and offerings to the power of theHoly People." This account was echoed by other interviewees as well. [211]

There was another common understanding among various intervieweesregarding Rainbow Bridge: the existence of a "sacred" spring below thebridge in Bridge Canyon. In 1974, Nakai Ditloi detailed for the courtshis recollections of the spring and the specific ceremonies that wereperformed there:

There is a cave down the canyon from Rainbow Bridge. Medicine mencome from all over the reservation to meet in this cave. There is also asacred spring in the canyon near the cave. It is called "clear body maleand female water." Its water is used in the prayers and to wash thesacred bundles of the medicine man. Ground turquoise and shells aregiven to the spring to aid in the prayers from rain. Prayers are renewedand knowledge of the earth and the ways of the Diné is increasedwhen the medicine men come to the cave. [212]

All of Luckert's interviewees confirmed the existence and location ofthis spring. Floyd Laughter also remembered the spring as where SpringPerson lived. It was located at the base of the slope of Rainbow Bridge.It was there that singers said prayers for wealth, for livestock, forjewelry. They also conducted raiding prayers and protectionwayceremonies at this sacred spring. [213]

The other detail that most Navajo singers agreed on was the identityof the Navajo man who first brought them, or their fathers, knowledge ofthe bridge. His name was Áshiihí bin áá'ádiní (Old Blind Salt Clansman or OldHashkéniinii). This was the same man who told Louisa Wetherillabout the bridge in 1907. It was Áshiihí bináá' ádiní who helped many of the 20thcentury singers with the rites associated with Rainbow Bridge. The oneobvious problem with Luckert's interviews was the misconception thatNavajos did not arrive near Navajo Mountain until the 1860s, beingchased there by Carson. Nothing could have been further from the truth.Celone Dougi, Áshiihí bin áá'ádiní's granddaughter, was interviewed for thisadministrative history in 2000. She said that her grandfather had alwaysbeen here, along with many other Navajos. Most of the Navajos andPaiutes interviewed for this administrative history were able to recounta long lineage in the Navajo Mountain area, remembering relatives bornnear the mountain as far back as the 1820s. But what is important isthat most Navajo singers and other residents from the region creditÁshiihí bin áá' ádiní withboth early knowledge of the bridge and its associated religious rites.[214]

It is unlikely that Navajos were the only people to find religioussignificance in the bridge. A fair argument can be made that earlyinhabitants of the region found the bridge and likely prayed there. Theexistence of the hearth excavated at the foot of the bridge (see chapter2), the proximity of ancestral Puebloan dwellings, and the number ofother pre-Puebloan sites a short distance from Bridge Canyon makes itlikely that early inhabitants of the region found the bridge. Besidesthe oral tradition of Navajo religious beliefs involving Rainbow Bridge,there is other, albeit limited, physical evidence of religious worshipat the bridge.

After the Cummings/Douglass expedition reached Rainbow Bridge onAugust 14, 1909, members of the party fanned out to explore theimmediate vicinity. Cummings observed a small "fire shrine in the shadowon the bench at one side." [215] The detailsof the location are important in their comparative value. Cummings'observation put the shrine on the north side of the bridge, which wouldhave been shadowed by a noon sun climbing into the sky above BridgeCanyon. Judd reported seeing the same shrine. He wrote that "near thedown-curving buttress, but slightly to one side, is a small heap ofstones inclosing a slab sided receptacle, the altar of cliff dwellingpeoples who roamed this canyon country long before the Navaho [sic] wonit for themselves." [216] William Douglassmade a similar note. He reported that "almost under the arch, on thenorth side of the gulch [was] the wall of some small prehistoricstructure in front of which slabs of sandstone set on edge outline anoval 3x5 feet—an altar . . . ." [217]Temporal and cultural observations aside, the consistency in thesedescriptions allows some suppositions to be made regarding thenon-secular traits of early inhabitants of the region and thepossibility that they worshiped near the bridge. Before 1930, othertravelers to the bridge noted the stone altar as well. Notable amongthese visitors was Theodore Roosevelt. He described what he saw as "theruin of a very ancient shrine." [218] Itseems clear that before the 1930s, when someone or something destroyedthe altar-like structure, Rainbow Bridge was used as a worship site.

There was and still is a long history of Native American activity atRainbow Bridge. Between 1970 and 1971, when the waters from Lake Powellbegan to creep up Bridge Canyon and into the monument, some Navajos weremore than a little concerned. They were certain of their own history atthe bridge and gave little thought to the fact that their history wasunwritten. Outside some case-specific context, Navajos did not feel anyneed to record in written form the practice of religious ceremonies atRainbow Bridge. Sometimes cultures overlook the significance ofrecording an activity when that activity is frequent and not out of theordinary. In any event, the steady advance of encroaching waters between1970 and 1974 dictated that the Navajo had to do something to preservetheir religious heritage.

On September 3, 1974, the Navajo Legal Aid Society (DNA) filed suitin U.S. district court to stop waters from Lake Powell from enteringBridge Canyon. [219] The plaintiffs wereeight Navajo singers, including Nakai Ditloi, Lamar Badoni, TeddyHoliday, and Jimmy Goodman. Shonto, Navajo Mountain, and InscriptionHouse chapters of the Navajo Nation were also listed as plaintiffs. Thesuit named some important defendants: Bureau of Reclamation CommissionerGilbert R. Stamm; NPS Director George B. Hartzog; and Secretary of theInterior Rogers C.B. Morton. The relief sought in the suit centeredaround the Navajo claim that "Rainbow Bridge [was] a religious symboland a focal point through which many prayers and religious ceremoniesderive meaning and vitality by reason of its role in the emergence ofthe Navajo people." The suit argued two major claims for relief. In thefirst claim, the suit alleged that the flooding of Bridge Canyon bywater from Lake Powell desecrated or destroyed numerous sites ofreligious significance. Additionally, the improved accessibility toRainbow Bridge provided by Lake Powell had resulted in thousands moretourists in the monument. This directly impeded the ability of Navajosingers and others from performing religious activities at and near thebridge. The negative physical impacts on Rainbow Bridge and itsenvirons, occasioned by increased tourist visitation, were also cited aspart of this claim for relief. As a result of these harms, theplaintiffs alleged that their ability to pursue the free exercise ofreligion was impeded by the current operational status of Glen CanyonDam and Lake Powell.

The first claim for relief sought a specific response. The plaintiffsdemanded that the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service"to take appropriate steps to operate Glen Canyon Dam . . . in such amanner that the important religious and cultural interests of [the]plaintiffs will not be harmed or degraded." This meant releasing enoughwater from Lake Powell to let its waters recede from Bridge Canyon. Italso meant implementing any measures necessary to curtail harmfultourist activities at the bridge. This claim expressed a concern thatwas new to the Park Service: Native American belief in the spiritual andcultural significance of a natural edifice and the role of that edificein the free exercise of a Native American religion. This conceptpredated the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) by fouryears. The language used in the DNA suit for describing the sacrosanctstatus of Rainbow Bridge and its relationship to Navajo religiousfreedom was strikingly similar to the language eventually used in theAIRFA. But in 1974, the AIRFA did not exist. It is likely that thesignificance of the Navajo suit and the damages claimed at RainbowBridge were definite contributors to the passage of the AIRFA in itsfinal form. After all, the decision in Badoni v. Higginson cameless than a year before the AIRFA. Unfortunately the documentaryevidence to verify such a claim is beyond the resources and scope ofthis administrative history. [220]

Because the AIRFA was not law by 1974, the DNA suit made use ofexisting legislation to underpin the demand for injunctive relief atRainbow Bridge. The second claim for relief raised the specter of theColorado River Storage Project (CRSP) and the historic relationshipbetween the Department of the Interior and Native American tribes. Thiscomplaint stipulated that the improper operation of the Glen Canyon Damviolated Section 1 of the CRSP, which mandated the Secretary of theInterior to take adequate protective measures against the impairment ofRainbow Bridge NM. The suit stipulated that protecting the monumentmeant more than just safeguarding its physical resources. DNA attorneysargued that the plaintiffs were the intended beneficiaries of Section 1,because of their unique and verified interest in the integrity of thebridge and its environs.

The suit also observed that "the Secretary of the Interior, by virtueof his position of overseer of Indian Affairs, occupies the position ofa fiduciary with respect to the plaintiffs, and thus owes them thehighest level of care in actions taken by him which impinge on therights and interests of [Navajos] and other Indian peoples." Thehistoric relationship between the federal government and NativeAmericans was employed here to denote a vested Navajo interest in theeffects of decisions made by the Secretary of the Interior. Navajointerests could not be separated from Rainbow Bridge interests;therefore, the Secretary of the Interior was obliged to protect Navajointerests as part of his obligation stipulated in Section 1 of the CRSP.The framers of the CRSP had obviously overlooked an importantpossibility in the intent of Section 1: that more than the physicalelements of Rainbow Bridge required protection. Navajos were arguingthat spiritual integrity was as important as physical integrity, whichallowed the possibility that desecration of religious sites at RainbowBridge constituted impairment.

The issues in these claims clearly revolved around what constitutedimpairment and whether or not spiritual harm was a justifiable cause forrelief. The courts had little practice establishing the veracity ofNative American spiritual claims on natural features like RainbowBridge. In an unprecedented decision, Judge Aldon J. Anderson ordered astudy be undertaken to determine the legitimacy of Navajo oral traditionregarding the religious significance of Rainbow Bridge. The court askedethnographer Karl Luckert to complete this task. Luckert's collection oforal histories, Navajo Mountain and Rainbow Bridge Religion, wasthe result. Luckert designed a series of oral interview questions thattried to discern not only the details of the Navajo origin story butalso the process by which that story was handed down for precedinggenerations. As discussed previously in this chapter, Luckert's effortsestablished a clear and consistent tradition of the bridge's importanceto western Navajos.

Federal attorneys argued that summary judgement should be granted tothe defendants for one simple, yet overwhelming, reason: the plaintiffslacked claim to protection of free exercise of religion because they hadno property interests in Rainbow Bridge NM. The Navajo Nation did notown the 160 acres that comprised the monument; therefore, the governmentwas under no obligation to protect Navajo religious freedom. Doing whatthe Navajo plaintiffs demanded—regulating a unit of the nationalpark system for the benefit of non-owners to conduct private religiousceremonies—violated the Establishment Clause of the FirstAmendment.

The First Amendment forbids Congress from establishing a statereligion; consequently, legal disputes have arisen periodically overgovernment actions that might constitute an endorsem*nt of a specificreligion. This historical controversy became a permanent part of thelegal disputes involving Rainbow Bridge. Government attorneys furtherargued that regulating tourist traffic at the monument in such a waythat permitted Navajo access to the bridge for religious reasons whiledenying non-Navajo visitor access also constituted a violation of theEstablishment Clause. The defendants claimed that for any violation offree exercise to occur, the plaintiffs had to establish a verifiableclaim on the site where religious ceremonies took place.

Federal attorneys also filed a motion to strike the Luckert report,arguing that the subjectivity of the report's contents could not becontested by law. The court's reaction to the report was two-sided. Onone side the court recognized the validity of Navajo claims to a court'sdecision to rule in summary judgement in favor of the defendants. As anaside, the court said it "the accepts as established and true all thefacts and conclusions in the affidavit and monograph of Dr. Luckert."[221]

Unfortunately for the Navajo plaintiffs, the court's willingness toaccept the existence of some religious tradition was not enough. JudgeAnderson ruled against the Navajos on December 30, 1977, citing tworationales for denying Navajo claims. First, the plaintiffs did not havea free exercise claim because they had no property interest in themonument. The government, by extension, had no responsibility to upholdthe free exercise of religion on land it managed as part of the federalestate. Second, even if the plaintiffs could prove a cognizable freeexercise claim, the government's interests in the continued operation ofGlen Canyon Dam and the larger CRSP outweighed any free exercise claimsmade by the Navajos. Regarding the specific claims of religioussignificance at Rainbow Bridge, Judge Anderson went even further.Underpinning his ruling, Anderson cited Wisconsin v. Yoder, acase involving the Wisconsin Board of Education and a group of Amishresidents. In Yoder, the court ruled that Wisconsin lawsregarding compulsory public education violated Amish principles and thefree exercise of their religion. [222] Inthe final ruling on Yoder, the Supreme Court concluded that theAmish claim to protection under the First Amendment was valid becausethe traditional way of life for the Amish was not simply a matter ofpersonal preference but "one of deep religious conviction, shared by anorganized group, and intimately related to daily living."

It seemed to the Navajos and their attorneys that Yoderactually supported the claims on Rainbow Bridge. The Navajo chapterslisted as plaintiffs were an organized group, their religion was a wayof life, Navajos had no choice about their Native American birthidentity. Moreover, the court had acknowledged the veracity of Navajofaith regarding Rainbow Bridge in its support of Luckert's monograph.But Judge Anderson interpreted Yoder differently than theplaintiffs. On the issues of religion, Rainbow Bridge, and the freeexercise of Navajo beliefs, Anderson wrote "the present plaintiffs havegone to great lengths to construct a cognizable action out of theirclaim of First Amendment religious infringement. Again, however, evenassuming that all the assertions as to the existence of plaintiffs'beliefs are true, it is apparent that these interests do not constitute'deep religious conviction[s], shared by an organized group andintimately related to daily living.'" [223]Based on the apparent contradiction of this rationale, DNA attorneysappealed the Anderson decision to the federal Circuit Court of Appealsin Denver.

The appeals process is generally a long and winding road. This wasnot the case in Badoni v. Higginson. DNA attorneys filed theirappeal August 16, 1978, five days after passage of the American IndianReligious Freedom Act. The appeal reasoned that the lower court "indetermining the existence of sincere and bona fide religious beliefs onthe part of the appellants. . . disregarded the record, [and] appliederroneous and unduly restrictive legal standards." [224] Much of the appeal concerned the lowercourt's decision regarding Navajo property interests in the monument.Attorneys for the Navajos argued that free exercise claims could bepredicated solely on non-economic interests and that title to the landin question was irrelevant. The appeal contended that the Navajopossessed historic and aboriginal claims on the area surrounding RainbowBridge, claims denied only by the Treaty of Bosque Redondo and theillegal use of force in removing the Navajos to a reservation. The landsurrounding the bridge had been added to the Navajo reservation byexecutive order on May 17, 1884. It remained part of the Navajoreservation until it was removed by another executive order on November19, 1892. Given that Navajo cultural tradition maintained aboriginalclaims on the bridge, and the federal government had at one timecodified this claim in executive order, Navajo attorneys argued therewas significant reason for the appellate court to rethink the standardsfor "property interest." Citing numerous legal precedents, the Navajoappellants maintained that proving actual title was not material toestablishing interest in property. [225]

If the Navajo plaintiffs could claim an interest in Rainbow Bridgewithout establishing title, the appellate court would then weigh theinterests of the government against the religious interests of theNavajos. To this end, the appeal indicted the application ofYoder as a standard for testing religious conviction. The appealcontended that even the Supreme Court recognized that the Amish standardwas one which few other religions meet. Requiring that any religiousclaim made under the First Amendment must constitute deep religiousconviction and be shared by an organized group and be intimately relatedto daily living would exclude many beliefs traditionally recognized asreligions. Many religious people or groups have eclectic beliefs thatare not uniformly shared; very few can make the Amish claim that theirbeliefs are thoroughly and intimately related to the daily lives oftheir adherents. In Anderson's application of Yoder, mostreligions and their adherents would not be protected by the FirstAmendment. [226] This was a compelingargument. The appeal further contended that the standard in Yoderwas more a test of what constituted religious lifestyle than it was atest for determining religious veracity. In Yoder, the SupremeCourt never questioned the legitimacy of the Amish religion. Theappellants claimed that Yoder was incorrectly applied inBadoni.

The appellate court was not swayed. The Navajos hoped that thenational and legislative mood embodied in the AIRFA would favor theircase. The AIRFA had been law for two years when the district courtannounced its decision. But it was not a decision or rationale theNavajos expected. To the issue of property interests in the monument,the appellate court responded that establishing an interest was notnecessary as a consideration in evaluating a legitimate free exerciseclaim. To the issue of whether or not Navajo religion was an establishedenough practice to be protected under the First Amendment, the courtresponded favorably. Judge Logan, writing for the appellate court, saidthat in reviewing Judge Anderson's summary judgement, the court viewed"the facts and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light mostfavorable to [the] plaintiffs." Logan subsequently validated most of theNavajo claims regarding their religious interests at the bridge: theexistence of sacred springs, the need to pray at the bridge,generational importance of the bridge to Navajos, and the desecratingeffect of tourist activity and inundation on Bridge Canyon and its holyenvirons as a result of allowing Lake Powell waters to enter themonument. Effectively Judge Logan was acknowledging that Navajoreligious activity was a protected free exercise of religion, based onthe validity of Navajo oral and cultural tradition rather than theexistence of any title claim to the land in question. The mostsurprising part of the ruling was the court's assessment of whether ornot Navajo First Amendment rights could be balanced against federalinterests in Lake Powell.

One of the government claims in the lower court decision stated thatregardless of the veracity of the Navajo religious claims, thegovernment can preclude the free exercise of religion if there areinterests of great enough magnitude to justify the infringement. In thecase of Rainbow Bridge, the district court paid special attention to thefact that Glen Canyon Dam was one in a chain of water storageprojects—which meant that its significance was married to theoverall Colorado River Storage Project and could not be evaluated in thevacuum of a religious freedom claim, Judge Logan wrote:

We agree with the trial court that the government's interest inmaintaining the capacity of Lake Powell at a level that intrudes intothe Monument outweighs plaintiffs' religious interest . . . . [Evidence]shows that the storage capacity of the lake would be cut in half if thesurface level were dropped to an elevation necessary to alleviate thecomplained of infringements. The required reduction would significantlyreduce the water available to the Upper Basin States of Colorado, NewMexico, Utah and Wyoming from the Colorado River. Such a reduction . . .would among other things limit and reduce the development of watersupplies within these States on either a permanent basis or on a limitedlong-term basis for irrigation purposes, for development of mineral andother natural resources, and for municipal and industrial watersupplies. . . . Moreover, it is reasonable to conclude that no actionother than reducing the water level would avoid the alleged infringementof plaintiffs' beliefs and practices. In these circ*mstances we believethe government has shown an interest of a magnitude sufficient tojustify the alleged infringements. [227]

Despite the legislative mood favoring the free exercise of NativeAmerican religion, and the court's favorable opinion of Navajo religiousclaims, the court ruled in favor of federal managers. Judge Loganbalanced the interests of the Navajos with the interests of the variousstates involved in the CRSP and on that playing field, religious freedomcould not compare with economic prosperity. The Navajos were left withthe unpalatable reality that they had proven their case but did notmeasure up to the interests of the state or federal government.

On specific Navajo claims that NPS policy encouraged increased andreckless visitation by tourists, and the effect of that visitation onNavajo religious practices, the appellate court was less generous.Granting Navajo demands for periodic private access to conduct religiousceremonies or ordering the Park Service to enact regulations designed toforce monument visitors into solemn or deferential behavior wouldconstitute federal endorsem*nt of one religion over all others at themonument. This, the court ruled, would clearly violate the EstablishmentClause of the First Amendment. On this claim, the issue of real propertyinterest also worked to the disadvantage of the Navajos. Judge Loganwrote "we find no basis in the law for ordering the government toexclude the public from public areas to insure privacy during theexercise of First Amendment rights. . . . We do not believe plaintiffshave a constitutional right to have tourists act in a respectful andappreciative manner. . . . Were it otherwise, the Monument would becomea government-managed religious shrine." [228]

The key, according to the court, was that no matter what title-basedclaims Navajos had made in the past, Rainbow Bridge NM was a public areaand all members of the public had equal right to access and use. As longas no law was being broken, federal managers were not empowered orobligated to regulate the behavior of monument visitors. Navajos wereleft in a quandary. While the court had validated some of the mostimportant moral claims made by Navajos (issues of religious veracity),the ruling made it a matter of law that Native American religiousinterests could be violated if the opposing interests were compellingenough to justify infringing on First Amendment protections. The NavajoNation did not find relief for its claims in the courts. The developmentof a policy that addressed both Navajo and Park Service needs at themonument would have to evolve from mutual cooperation, not from ajudicial order. It was not long before the Park Service and the NavajoNation started looking for the middle-ground many issues.

The National Park Service spent much of the 1960s embroiled innumerous legal battles involving Section 1 of the CRSP and protection ofRainbow Bridge (see chapter 6). Between 1960 and 1978, the Secretary ofthe Interior and the Director of the National Park Service were suedfour times by three separate groups. Rainbow Bridge and its particularrelationship with Lake Powell was a never-ending source of controversy.Despite this atmosphere, the Park Service fostered certain relationshipswith care and concern. Between 1960 and 1975 the Park Service dedicatedsignificant time and resources to developing a cooperative agreementwith the Navajo Nation over fights, access, and commercial management atLake Powell. The details of those negotiations are discussed in Chapter7. Suffice to say that Park Service personnel were concerned withensuring the Nation was treated fairly at Lake Powell while stillmaintaining a proper degree of visitor access at Rainbow Bridge. TheNation was more than stressed by the process of dealing with Anglobureaucrats over issues it thought were non-issues. Navajos neverunderstood or agreed with the need to comply with Park Service andReclamation regulations and requirements concerning concessions andfacilities at Lake Powell. The combination of this strained relationshipwith local Navajos and the reality check imposed by Badoni v.Higginson also compelled NPS to reevaluate its interpretiveperceptions of Rainbow Bridge.

The mood of most Navajos after Badoni was subdued. Theyrealized too late that the economic importance of water reclamation wasmore than their lawyers or prayers could manage. But the Park Servicewas not immune to the Navajos' needs at Rainbow Bridge. Badonimade it plain to the Park Service how the Navajo Nation felt aboutRainbow Bridge. Badoni made public the Navajo belief that RainbowBridge was central to their origin story and that prolonged desecrationof the bridge would not be tolerated. In internal memos written duringthe 1974 suit, the Park Service took stock of its secular interpretationof Rainbow Bridge. NPS maintained that its defense in the suit was notdirected at Navajo beliefs about Rainbow Bridge. The plaintiffs, as partof the many claims for relief in Badoni, demanded that the ParkService restrict visitor access to the bridge in favor of Navajoreligious use. As a matter of legislative mission the National ParkService was compelled to deny this request, adhering to the legal andlegislative tenet that Rainbow Bridge was part of the public domain andmust remain accessible to the public. Access could not be denied nomatter who held it sacred. But the mood at the Park Service changedduring the suit.

Thirty-eight days after the court issued a decision in Badoni,and months before the AIRFA passed, the Secretary of the Interiorinstructed Park Service personnel to begin accounting for NativeAmerican cultural resources in management and planning activities. TheSecretary outlined this policy in Special Directive 78-1, which read inpart:

In carrying out its mandate for the conservation and public enjoymentof park lands and their resources, the Service, consistent with eachpark's legislative history, purpose and management objectives, willdevelop and execute its programs in a manner that reflects informedawareness, sensitivity, and serious concern for the traditions, culturalvalues and religious beliefs of Native Americans who have ancestral tiesto such lands. [229]

The purpose of SD 78-1 was to revise the Park Service's overallmanagement plan to include Native Americans in significant and officialways. Even if the Park Service knew that the AIRFA was imminent, thiswas a bold step. The Park Service revamped its own policy to account forissues raised in both Badoni and the eventual passage of theAIRFA. SD 78-1 also directed local park and monument managers toencourage and foster Native American involvement in local policiesrelated to cultural resource management, and planning. SD 78-1 was notambiguous with its intent: "Where planning, development, orinterpretation relate to Native American interests, consultation withNative Americans is very important."

Within two months, the Statement for Management for Rainbow Bridge NMwas in flux. In January 1979, the Park Service completed an informalsurvey of all of its units regarding the potential for religioussignificance to Native American groups. While the report was cursory, itconcluded, "it is generally understood that Rainbow Bridge has a sacredsignificance to the Navajo." [230] TheStatement for Management for Rainbow Bridge was expanded to includediscovery and development of the cultural significance of the bridge. By1979 the Park Service developed and adopted a religious liaison programto meet the legal requirements of the AIRFA. The program appointedspecial liaisons to help with implementation of the specific tenets ofthe AIRFA. Consulting religious leaders from every tribe affected by theAIRFA was a key goal in the early 1980s. [231] In 1981 the Park Service completed a draftversion of the Native American Relationships Policy (NARP), an extensionof the religious liaison program. The Park Service realized that part ofits mission, in light of the AIRFA, was to interpret in certain parkareas the "cultural heritage of the Native American." The legislativeintent of the AIRFA trickled down to Rainbow Bridge in the form of yetanother revision to the monument's statement for management. The revisedmanagement objective was "to strive to foster and maintain a bettercooperative relationship for the use and protection of the nationalmonument with the Navajo Tribe." [232] ThePark Service knew it could not remove the waters of Lake Powell from themonument; but, it was willing to accommodate the Navajo Nation to thebest of its ability while staying within legal limits.

As plans solidified during the 1980s for equitable management of LakePowell's resources, the Park Service undertook an ethnographic studyproject. Pauline Wilson, the American Indian Liaison for Glen CanyonNational Recreation Area (NRA), conducted numerous interviews withmembers of the local Navajo Nation chapters. The interviews werespecifically designed to discern the level and type of religiousactivity engaged in at Rainbow Bridge. Based on these interviews, Wilsondetermined that Navajos "viewed their religious significance of theRainbow Bridge as a very private activity." Wilson also noted that "inthis situation, the public has impacted the Bridge so much that it haslimited the religious activities tremendously since the lakeestablishment. Therefore, the Navajo People have adjusted to the impactrather than opposing the situation." [233]That lack of opposition did not last much longer.

To cope with the numerous command and control issues at RainbowBridge, the Park Service also began working on a General Management Plan(GMP) for the monument. The GMP went through numerous revisions beforesufficient cooperative efforts produced the final draft. As a result,the Park Service realized that some of its management efforts madeduring the previous thirteen years did not address the expandingexpectations of Navajos and tourists. More of the administrative detailsof the GMP are explored in chapter 7. But one of the major toolsdeveloped in the GMP was a framework for dealing with the religiousissues surrounding Rainbow Bridge. An important part of this plan waslimiting the number of visitors to Rainbow Bridge to approximately 400people at one time (PAOT). [234] Thisconstituted an overall increase in annual visitation but might reducethe maximum daily visitation during peak months. The first draft of theGMP also suggested that everyone who wanted to visit the bridge,including Navajos, should be required to obtain a permit and reservationprior to their visit. The permit proposal met with immediate criticismfrom both Navajo and Anglo sources. Alan S. Downer, the historicpreservation officer for the Navajo Nation, said it was absurd tosuggest that Navajos be required to obtain a permit to use somethingthey had always considered sacred and holy. Speaking in the local press,Downer suggested other additions to the GMP: stricter limits onvisitation, mandatory Navajo interpreters, and restricted traffic underthe bridge. [235] Terri Martin of theNational Parks and Conservation Association agreed with Downer,reiterating that the proposed visitation limits in the GMP woulddefinitely result in overcrowding at the bridge and extensive ecologicaldamage. [236] Martin suggested that theresult would be "a carnival type atmosphere." [237] The Navajo Nation was certainly opposed tothis possibility.

The first draft of the GMP, published in September 1990, was not anadequate response to the multifaceted concerns over Rainbow Bridge. Thelack of local input was obvious. To remedy this problem, the ParkService involved the local chapters of the Navajo Nation even moreclosely than before. Each affected Navajo chapter held planning meetingsto express detailed concerns over the GMP. Park Service officials werepresent at many of these meetings. The various drafts of the GMP thatfollowed these input and planning sessions were significantly differentfrom the first draft. Some of the modifications included limitingvisitation during peak season to fewer than 300 PAOT. Revisions alsosuggested daily time restrictions on visitation, providing tour groups alimited window of four to six hours to see the monument. [238] By February 1992, the most recent draft ofthe GMP limited visitation to between 40 and 200 PAOT. It also includedproposals for a reservation system and a shuttle service that movedpeople from a contact station outside the mouth of Bridge Canyon to thedocks below Rainbow Bridge. [239] Thesechanges represented the management direction most preferred by theNavajo Nation.

By June 1993, the final draft of the General Management Plan wasready. The visitation level was set at 200 people at one time during thepeak season. The plan also recommended that NPS interpreters be assignedto all tour boats entering the monument. This part of the GMP had twopurposes: to facilitate monument interpretation and to ensure orderlyand appropriate ingress and egress at the monument docking facilities.While the GMP allowed for discouragement of visitor access to areasclose to the bridge, the plan made no stipulation restricting visitorsfrom approaching the bridge via approved trail access. The planclassified the entire monument a "natural zone." This meant that inaddition to the bridge's proposed status as a traditional culturalproperty, the monument would be managed based on natural resourcesensitivity and the potential for negative impacts to extant ecology.The bridge represented the outstanding natural feature subzone; byextension, NPS was to manage the monument based on concerns for thebridge's physical integrity and not just its importance to NativeAmericans. The final GMP made no attempt to restrict visitor access indeference to Native American use; in fact, the GMP referencedBadoni a number of times to reiterate the Park Service's missionto manage for the benefit of the general public. The final GMP alsoincluded an interpretive prospectus that mapped the history of themonument; the area's significance; the monument's cultural and naturalresources; and, the history of the area's use coupled with NativeAmerican concerns. [240] But even theexecution of a management plan would not help the Park Service avoidconflict or controversy in administering the monument.

Rainbow Bridge was a contested space as soon as it was first mapped.The debates ranged from who discovered what and when they discovered itto the controversial role of dams and reservoirs in the national parksystem to the responsibilities of officials charged with protecting thebridge from harm and preserving it for religious use. Navajos had longbeen present in the region, even when Anglos were nowhere near NavajoMountain. The frustrations of some Navajos over religious use andrestricted access came to a head in 1995. On August 11, 1995 a smallgroup of Navajos and Anglos calling themselves Protectors of theRainbow, announced that beginning immediately they wanted to deny publicaccess to the bridge for a four-day period. They intended to performcleansing and other religious ceremonies that they could not performduring the constant flow of tourist activity. [241] By 1995 over 1,000 tourists per day(during peak season) made the trek along Lake Powell into the monument.The Protectors of the Rainbow were angry that despite the bestintentions of the Park Service, visitation had increased after the GMPwas adopted in 1993 and abuses at the bridge continued. The Protectorsof the Rainbow felt that the trust Navajos extended to the Park Servicehad been violated. "Many desecrations and defilements have beenpermitted by the Park Service during the 25 years in which the NavajoNation has allowed the Park Service to conduct tours [at the bridge],"claimed the press release issued by the Protectors of the Rainbow. [242]

The Park Service responded with deference. There were no attemptsmade to remove the protesters, and the ceremonies took place withoutincident. [243] On August 15, four daysafter the protest began, the Protectors of the Rainbow ended theirceremonies and returned control of the bridge to the Park Service. In apost-occupation press conference, members of Protectors of the Rainbowsaid they wanted to demonstrate "Navajo sovereignty and to bring arenewed level of spirituality to the people." [244] The protestors also made references tofrustrations over their failure to secure tour boat concessions from thePark Service. The Navajo Mountain Chapter of the Navajo Nation deniedany affiliation with the protest, as did the Navajo Nation. Regardless,the event illustrated that some Navajos were not willing to watchpassively while the bridge was continually over-crowded. The ParkService for its part became even more willing to do what it could tofacilitate respect for Navajo beliefs at Rainbow Bridge while stilladhering to its own legislative mission and the letter of the law asexpressed in Badoni.

In July 1995, the Park Service placed a sign near the bridge askingtourists and visitors not to approach or walk under the bridge. The newsignage was part of the requirements of a Programmatic Agreement (PA)signed by the Park Service and five Native American tribes that claimedcultural or spiritual affinity with Rainbow Bridge. The intent was notto physically prevent any visitor from approaching the bridge but to"discourage" such activity. In addition, the Park Service removedreferences in printed materials to the two historic trails so as todiscourage excessive hiking in the region. The PA formalized plans tofor a viewing area, located at the trail head. The viewing area wasconstructed from a natural Kayenta Sandstone platform bordered by smallboulder. Rather than pave the trail to the bridge, the Park Service useda pine-based organic hardener to stabilize the trail. The organichardener would not restrict the movement of Navajo spirits to and fromthe various under worlds. The one thing the Park Service could not dowas require tourists to stay back from the bridge.

How far the Park Service could go in regulating visitor access andactivity at a national monument was tested in Wyoming District Court in1996. In February 1995, NPS managers at Devils Tower National Monument(NM) did two things. First, in their Final Climbing Management Plan(FCMP), they instituted a voluntary ban on climbing during the month ofJune, "in respect for reverence many American Indians hold for DevilsTower as a sacred site, rock climbers will be asked to voluntarilyrefrain from climbing on Devils Tower during the culturally significantmonth of June." In addition, the Park Service, placed signs along accesstrails to the Tower which indicated the lands off-trail were sacred toNative Americans. The signs asked hikers not to leave the trail. Lastly,NPS decided that if the voluntary ban was not sufficiently successful,it would encourage compliance by not issuing any commercial use licencesfor guided climbing activity. Facing issues similar to those at RainbowBridge, Park Service personnel at Devils Tower NM decided to defer toNative American interests through a dedicated policy of voluntarycompliance. [245]

The policy continued through the 1995 season and commercial permitswere denied in June 1995. The lawsuit came in March 1996 in WyomingDistrict Court. In Bear Lodge Multiple Use Association v.Babbitt, climbing guides filed suit based on the EstablishmentClause of the First Amendment, arguing that the Park Service's expresspurpose for restricting commercial and private activity at Devils TowerNM was to promote Native American religion. [246] The Court split in its June 1996 decision.The Court held partly for the plaintiffs, ruling that refusinglegitimate commercial activity permits for the purpose of securingprivate Native American religious access to the Tower was a violation ofthe Establishment Clause. But the Court also ruled for the Park Serviceon the constitutionality of their policy of voluntary compliance withnot climbing during the month of June and voluntarily refraining fromleaving the trails that accessed the Tower. The Court specificallystated:

The Defendants' efforts to fashion a voluntary program wherebyclimbers are encouraged to show respect for American Indian religiousand cultural traditions is both laudable and constitutionallypermissible. The Defendants' solicitous concerns for Indian religion andefforts to provide reasonably unfettered access to Indian sacred sitesis also in keeping with the American Indian Religious Freedoms Act("AIRFA"), 42 U.S.C.1996. Yet it must be remembered that the purpose ofthis act is to ensure that American Indians are afforded the protectionsguaranteed by the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and was notintended to grant rights to Indians in excess of those guarantees. [247]

The Park Service at Devils Tower NM subsequently modified the FCMP toallow for the Court's ruling, eliminating the ban on commercial climbingpermits during June. The Mountain States Legal Fund, litigating onbehalf of Bear Lodge, appealed the Court's second order concerning theconstitutionality of a voluntary climbing ban. Eventually the SupremeCourt refused to hear argument on the case and the Wyoming Court'sopinion held in the absence of Supreme Court action. The Park Servicehad a firm idea of how far it could go to facilitate relations withNative American groups with respect to visitor activity at a nationalmonument.

After Bear Lodge, and in consultation with Native Americangroups, Park Service personnel at Glen Canyon NRA modified the signageat Rainbow Bridge once more. In 1997 the Park Service placed a sign atthe viewing area (250 feet north of the bridge) that asked visitors tovoluntarily refrain from walking directly under the bridge. [248] Joe Alston, superintendent for Glen CanyonNRA, knew that any attempt to prohibit public access to the bridge infavor of Native American religious beliefs would be seen the same waythe commercial climbing ban was interpreted at Devils Tower NM. Usingthe word "voluntary" clarified the intent of the Park Service's policy.The Park Service never intended to prohibit access to the bridge. EvenNative American groups whom the Park Service regularly consulted agreedthat total prohibition would not work. The contemporary policiesconcerning Native American religion and access to Rainbow Bridge aredetailed more thoroughly in Chapter 8.