Canyon de Chelly Administrative History

Pursuant to a suggestion made by Dr. Clark Wissler, a Committee on Canyon de Chelly was organized to consider future plans for land development in the national monument. The meeting was held at the Laboratory of Anthropology library in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on September 5, 1931. Members of the committee were Neil M. Judd, A. V. Kidder, Clark Wissler, and Earl H. Morris, with Jesse L. Nusbaum serving as chairman. Frank Pinkley was also to serve on this committee, but he became ill and was unable to attend. [1]

The first item of business was a discussion of the scientific development within Canyon de Chelly National Monument. Morris stated that the monument "offered opportunities for the development of an educational and scientific exhibit that would be distinctive and unique." [2] Furthermore, he believed:

There is nowhere else an opportunity of so thoroughly exemplifying conditions early culturally and of displaying in a restricted locality a very long cycle in the gradual ascent of a primitive people toward civilization. These canons have been a nucleus not only of the old Pueblo domain, but more recently of the Navajo. They were occupied, I believe, continuously from the time that man first appears in the Southwest, barring possibly the Folsom Quarry-Gypsum Cave horizon, that is, from Basket Maker II, to the close of Pueblo III, insofar as the latter relates to the San Juan drainage. The late masonry Cliff House phase is amply exemplified elsewhere, notably in the Mesa Verde National Park. In contrast the Canon de Chelly National Monument is particularly rich in remains that date from the beginning rather than the end of the culture cycle. The greatest number of remains represent Basket Maker III. I could not say definitely, at this moment, how prevalent Pueblo I remains may be, but there are good chances that Pueblo I type sites exist in some of the caves.

In a number of pueblos that stand at the level of the valley floors, particularly in Canon de Chelly, Pueblo III remains are plentifully represented, and it is to be expected that careful search for them would bring to light characteristic Pueblo II sites. Perhaps by careful analysis of Mummy Cave it would be possible in this one shelter to develop certain features of the intermediate phases between Basket Maker III and Pueblo III. The probable criticism of the detailed plans for the development of the de Chelly Monument which have shaped themselves in my mind would be that they are too far-flown and too ideal to be possible of realization because of the expenditure that their materialization would entail. [3]

The members agreed that some type of chronological display should show this development in situ, and Judd suggested a small local museum could be helpful.

Kidder and Morris thought that Mummy Cave might be used to exemplify this sequence, although because of the activities of later occupants, Basket Maker II was almost non-existent. Wissler suggested that "the first objective is to present a chronological sequence in one place, then select a site elsewhere that best presents each phase." [4] The costs of developing such exhibits in situ would be expensive, according to Morris. Mummy Cave needed a wall "to hold back the area where the Cliff House stands, in order that the talus could be dissected. . . ." Morris also believed that repair work was essential for other aboveground structures, as well as for Antelope Cave. [5]

Morris stressed that because a Basket Maker II site was not accessible anywhere in the Southwest, he would like to see a site prepared for the public. He believed such a place was available near Antelope House and the cost would not be prohibitive. [6]

In the ensuing discussion, Wissler stated that National Park Service Director Albright

advised him that the Government should provide all excessive work and maintenance incident to the scientific development of educational features in such areas. He further stated that since this area is under the guardianship of the Government, rangers must be provided for its protection and for the purpose of conducting visitors to and through archaeological features thereof, and to tell the story connected there with. He further recommended that it would be advisable for the Government to have some qualified person there constantly seven days a week to work with such scientific agencies as might cooperate with the Government in developing the educational program contemplated, in order that he might be in a position to pass on to the public the full fruits of the campaign. [7]

Discussion then turned to the development of archeological resources within Canyon de Chelly National Monument. The committee unanimously agreed that a qualified institution that would be willing "to cooperate with the National Park Service in the development of this educational program" should be invited to work in this area. When asked if the Carnegie Institute would be interested in participating, Kidder replied "it would depend upon two points: Whether there are problems of sufficient scientific interest within this region to require a period of years to work them out, and, secondly, whether Carnegie Institution would care to obligate its Southwestern activities to that area over a period of years." [8]

Morris offered his services to work on the scientific development of the monument until the culture sequence could be worked out, which he estimated would take 5 years. Morris said that it would be expedient to develop sites representative of each major period. He wanted to give attention first to Basket Maker II and III and then work through to Pueblo I, II, and III, the latter best exemplified by Mummy Cave Cliff House. He believed most "finds" should be left in situ and all should receive necessary repairs. He advised that provisions should be made to protect the in situ finds from destruction by visitors. [9]

In evaluating the expenses of this project, Morris believed that they "would not necessarily be enormous." He stated that nothing should be done until the Government declared its degree of supervision and attention. "Each particular site," opined Morris, "would have to be watched just as carefully as a city museum is guarded. It would mean somebody present at the site all of the time." [10]

In regard to roads and access routes to the monument, Morris preferred that nothing be done at present in order "to avoid overrunning by too many visitors at the commencement of work." He said that the present condition of the roads afforded access to only the "better class" of visitors. By this he meant visitors who were interested in the area and who would not interfere with work being done. In addition Morris believed that the Navajos should continue to occupy the canyon and were "part of the picture." The committee unanimously concurred with Morris's suggestions. [11]

Further discussion centered upon the minimum amount of excavation needed "to satisfy all immediate demands from an educational point of view." A few sites were agreed upon for thorough examination from a scientific standpoint, and the committee believed "that an extensive program was justified since this monument promised a longer and more continuous sequence than any other areas under Park Service jurisdiction." [12] Kidder posed the question of unforeseen difficulties that might arise over funds secured through the Park Service by a non-Governmental employee. Nusbaum assured him that if such a situation arose, a non-Governmental employee "could be empowered to expend funds so secured, or could be appointed a representative of the National Park Service at a nominal salary in qualifying as the disbursing agent for government funds." [13]

Because the American Museum of National History had previously carried out archeological work in the area, Wissler was asked if they would be opposed to the Carnegie Institute excavating there. Wissler replied that the museum would not be opposed and that having the Carnegie Institute handle it "might be the most advantageous way to accomplish it, since the American Museum has committed itself to development work in the Dinosaur National Monument." [14]

Discussion then turned to the selection of a superintendent or custodian for the area. Wissler wondered if an "outstanding archaeologist" would be the best man for the job. "There is a great deal of business in handling a monument of this type that is not scientific, and it seems advisable to separate the purely administrative and maintenance activities from the scientific and educational activities in this particular development." The group agreed that the superintendent or custodian should be an administrative person and that a naturalist—"a high type of archeologist"—should also be appointed. Nusbaum concluded that "we should have a superintendent who is sympathetic to this educational and scientific development, but not too intimately concerned therein." [15]

In defining the role of the National Park Service in the development of a scientific exhibit in Canyon de Chelly, the committee decided that the Park Service "should not undertake the development through its own forces," but should have organized scientific bodies handle the matter. Furthermore, the Park Service should assign a naturalist, acting as an assistant to the head of the scientific body, to help in the archeological work. [16]

Judd then moved that Nusbaum write Director Albright informing him of the following prime objectives that the committee agreed to:

(1) That the de Chelly National Monument be made an outdoor museum, exemplifying the history of the aboriginal life of the northern Southwest and that type sites within it be kept available to the public, and, at the same time, carefully protected from the public.

(2) That a small local museum be established, when feasible, in which limited exhibits can be displayed of material taken from the ruins, and showings made of such synoptic series of sherds and other materials as will best illustrate the various phases of the aboriginal life and other features of the area. (Guide-control of visitors to and through ruins is fundamentally necessary to their preservation. Therefore, the local museum development and quarters for the custodian should be near the entrance in order to maintain traffic control, with the museum to hold the attention of visitors until guides are able to make trips with them.)

(3) That we welcome proposal from some scientific institution to make such investigations in the canons as may be necessary to develop an educational program.

(4) That we recommend appointment of superintendent or custodian as administrative man, and a qualified naturalist for this particular phase of the work who can take part in excavations as they progress. [17]

Judd, then asked the committee how these objectives should be attained. The following answers were supplied: that the staff should include at a minimum a custodian (administrative man) and a naturalist (archeologist), and that Nusbaum suggest to the Park Service which institutions might be interested in cooperating with them. Moreover, any monies alloted by the Government would be made immediately available to allow the Park Service to work with the scientific institution when arrangements were made. Morris believed that the best time of year to work would be in August and September after the summer rains. [18]

In regard to restoration and repairs, the committee followed a conservative policy. They recommended that "a minimum amount of restoration" be done on archaeological sites in order to protect and preserve them. They did not want restorations erected on the sites because of confusion and detraction from the actual ruins. [19]

Before the meeting adjourned, Judd suggested the following two tentative programs for the ensuing year, which the committee unanimously approved.

(1) The appointment of custodian who will take control, guard ruins, study administrative and traffic problems, and recommend such surveys as are necessary.

(2) Pending development of scientific programs, certain immediate protective measures should be taken at Antelope House and Mummy Cave where the tower is in very immediate danger. In this connection, it was suggested that Mr. Morris act as consultant because of his very intimate knowledge of the problems involved, and his broad experience in accomplishing such work. [20]

Following the instructions of the committee, Nusbaum wrote to Albright presenting the consensus of the committee's opinion on the prime objectives established. He referred to Kidder's suggestions that the Carnegie Institute might allot $6,000 per year for a 5-year period. This amount would be Morris's salary and expenses for the most part. However, under this plan the Park Service would supply $5,000 per annum for 5 years also. If it could not get the $5,000 appropriation from the Government, Nusbaum thought that the Rockefeller Foundation might be a possible source. [21]

Albright's reply to Nusbaum was far from encouraging. He believed the committee's report "most helpful to the Service," but the plan was "a bit ambitious" in wanting both a custodian and a park naturalist, although Albright believed it would be ideal to have such an arrangement. He stated that the recommendations provided a goal toward which to strive, but immediate results were "almost out of the question at the present time." Referring to the funding, Albright was pleased that the Carnegie Institute might supply $6,000 per annum, but he was unable to figure where the Park Service could get $5,000 to help in the cooperative plan. He believed Rockefeller could not be a source of revenue because of his other commitments. Albright did, however, write to Dr. Merriam requesting him to consider the program even though the Park Service could not fulfill its part of the scheme. Albright "pledged all the support we can give from this end." [22]

Although the above plan of funding did not materialize, Morris did do needed repair work at Mummy Cave. This was decided upon at a meeting at Canyon de Chelly National Monument on July 1, 1932. Present at this gathering were Horace M. Albright, Director, NPS: C. Marshal Finnan, superintendent, Mesa Verde National Park; C. J. Smith, superintendent, Petrified Forest National Monument; Frank Pinkley, superintendent, Southwestern Monuments; Jesse Nusbaum, archeologist for the Department of Interior; and Earl Morris, representing the Carnegie Institute. [23] The Carnegie Institute supplied Morris's services and transportation, while the Park Service furnished a fund of $400 to cover materials, supplies, and salaries for workers. Morris began work in September 1932. [24]

Morris and his crew (which did not include any Navajo workers) worked on the tower wall in Mummy Cave. They rebuilt and bonded the corners of the tower and did needed ceiling repairs; numerous photographs were taken. Morris terminated his work in Mummy Cave in October 1932. [25]

The selection of an archeologist and a custodian also did not proceed according to the plans and recommendations of the Canyon de Chelly Committee. Pinkley, who was unable to attend the meeting because of illness, took issue with Nusbaum over the custodian's and archeologist's duties. Pinkley, in a letter to Albright, wondered who paid the archeologist's salary and if he would be involved in public relations. [26]

Pinkley felt that there were three aspects of development in Canyon de Chelly National Monument: the research activities, which would be under the direction of an archeologist; the administrative affairs, which would be handled by the custodian; and the educational matters, which would be under the National Park Service Educational Division whose duty would be to "translate the results of the archaeologist for the benefit of the visitors." [27] Pinkley believed that the hiring of a permanent archeologist was unnecessary because the Educational Division could handle most of the duties, and if any "strictly" archeological problems arose, he suggested that the staff of the Bureau of Ethnology of the U.S. National Museum be consulted. [28]

Nusbaum answered Pinkley's criticism by stating that the appointed archeologist would not only supervise expeditions for a few months of the year but would also serve in the Educational Division. Nusbaum believed that "Pinkley will gain an additional archaeologist-naturalist in his forces for permanent service in a restricted national monument area, and his whole educational division, will be greatly strengthened thereby." [29]

In reply, Pinkley stated that "Nusbaum somewhat misses the point I was aiming at." [30] Pinkley reiterated that "What I am objecting to is the calm assumption that only a field-excavating archaeologist is capable of handling the educational work at an archaeological monument." [31] Furthermore, Pinkley believed that the real work was not what an archeologist found but the dissemination of the findings to the public, and since, according to Pinkley, archeologists were habitually slow in publishing their results, this would leave the Educational Division without materials to present to the public. In sum, Pinkley was saying that "it is not necessary to have a field-digging archaeologist in our Educational Division." [32] Therefore no permanent archeologist was appointed at Canyon de Chelly National Monument.

The appointment of a custodian also did not materialize as quickly as the committee recommended. The aforementioned meeting at Canyon de Chelly on July 1, 1932, recognized that someone needed to be on hand at the monument for security purposes. Consequently, they empowered the proprietors of the Thunderbird Ranch to be "placed upon the rolls of the Park Service as nominally paid Park Rangers, which would give them the power of arrest and a general control over the problem of vandalism inside the monument." This was to be a temporary measure until the appointment of a permanent custodian, whose salary was included in the 1934 fiscal budget. [33]

Several men were nominated for the position of custodian between 1930 and 1934. Representative Douglas recommended that L. H. McSparron, owner of the Thunderbird Ranch, be appointed custodian as long as it would not be a full-time job. [34] Another request for the position came from W. H. Clark on January 28, 1931. [35] Pinkley, in charge of hiring, considered Clark too old and lacking the technical training needed for such a position. [36] Other candidates included O. C. Havens, L. C. Boies, Tom Allen, and Louis R. Caywood. [37] Caywood received a probational appointment as custodian at Canyon de Chelly from Demaray. [38] Pinkley did not want Caywood to go to Canyon de Chelly but rather to Casa Grande. [39] Pinkley favored Robert Budlong, custodian at Casa Grande, for the position at de Chelly. [40] Since Pinkley was responsible for the hiring of a new custodian, Robert Budlong was chosen, beginning his duties as the first custodian of Canyon de Chelly National Monument on August 18, 1934. [41]

Although Canyon de Chelly National Monument now had a custodian, it lacked a headquarters and residence for him. According to a reconnaissance report of de Chelly in 1932 conducted by J. B. Hamilton, an engineer, the best site for a headquarters was near the mouth of Canyon de Chelly. Hamilton favored this location because it would be advantageous for preventing unauthorized travel up the canyon and because it would be less expensive. [42] Hamilton did not give the actual cost of the headquarters project, but he did include the following estimates on some of the work involved: road from Thunderbird Ranch—$2,500, water supply (including plant for lights)—$750, and sewers—$350. [43]

The actual construction of the custodian's residence began on September 28, 1935, [44] and a 5,000-gallon water storage reservoir was completed on December 13. Helping Hamilton in the construction of the reservoir were local Navajo workers. [45] The total cost of the water storage reservoir and the sewer line, completed earlier, was estimated at $2,860. [46] A well to supply water was completed in January 1936; it was 98 feet 5 inches in depth. [47]

Budlong, who had moved his "residence" six times since being appointed custodian at de Chelly, was elated over the progress of the building. He described the residence as having 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, an enormous living room, an office, a dining alcove, a kitchen, and a service porch. [48] In June 1936 Budlong and his wife moved into their new quarters at Canyon de Chelly. [49]

The Budlongs did not stay very long in their new home because on November 30, 1936, he was transferred to El Morro. [50] Replacing him at Canyon de Chelly was Johnwill Faris, who was custodian from December 1, 1936, to November 14, 1938. [51]

Roads and Trails

One of the conclusions reached at the July 1, 1932, meeting at de Chelly concerned roads and trails. All agreed that it would not be necessary to build a road on the floor of the canyon. They believed that some rim roads would be needed and proper trails should be built to the various ruins. In addition, it was agreed that Navajo workers should be employed in all road and trail construction. [52]

Hamilton's reconnaissance report of 1932 also agreed that roads were unnecessary in the lower portions of the canyon. He "suggested that visitors be taken through lower canyons in greatly oversized balloon-tired cars, using the sandy bed of the wash as a highway. Traces of the travel would be washed away after every flood, leaving the canyon as natural as before." [53]

Concerning rim roads, Hamilton believed that most visitors would rather view the canyon from above. He stated that "the view from the rim is well worthy of exploitation." Visitors could view the ruins, peach orchards, gardens, and Indians themselves from the rim. He estimated that the cost would be $20,000 for rim roads and trails. [54]

Another problem existed regarding highways to the monument. The best way to reach de Chelly was to drive north from Highway 66, but the road from Ganado to Chinle was not surfaced nor did it contain proper drainage systems. [55] The unsurfaced road, of course, deterred visitors from visiting the monument in bad weather. However, a bridge was constructed over the Nazlini Wash near Chinle which, in addition to another bridge at Ganado, helped keep the road open to de Chelly. [56] An engineer working at de Chelly, C. A. Weintz, summed up the advantages of attracting people to the monument with a good road: "what this country needs is a good road; it can then hold its own with any of the show places of the Southwest." [57]

Consideration was still being given to construction of a road on the canyon floor, even though many believed it impractical because of annual flooding. However, some of the arguments against the project neglected this fact. George Grant, a Park Service photographer, not only opposed roads in the canyon but also wanted to restrict the number of visitors. He believed that "if dudes are permitted to travel up this Canyon they will cause the Service a lot of grief. And if large numbers of dudes go up there the Navajos will probably move out and that would be a mistake. It is too rich a sight to see them travelling up and down the Canyon on their ponies." [58]

Nusbaum also advocated keeping roads out of the canyon floor, stating that "if a highway or a well-traveled road is developed along the canyon floor, the naturalness and primitiveness of the region will be seriously influenced and a considerable part of the original values lost." [59] He was also worried that traffic on the canyon floor would badly "scar" the sand. [60]

Regarding possible routes of higher roads, Nusbaum suggested one that followed the north rim of Canyon del Muerto. He felt that a road built away from the rim, which occasionally neared exceptional viewing areas, would also serve a purpose. Visitors could then leave their vehicles and approach the sites. [61]

In 1934 plans were laid to work on White House Trail, and a meeting was held at de Chelly to discuss such a project. Attending the meeting were Superintendent John G. Hunter, Southern Navajo Indian Agency; Hugh Calkins, regional director, Soil Erosion Service; Tom Allen, lay assistant, Bureau of Animal Industry; F. A. Kittredge, chief engineer; Budlong; and McSparron. [62] Discussion revealed that the 1930 census showed an Indian population of 365 living in Canyon de Chelly. They had about 4,000 sheep and goats grazing in the canyon. Superintendent Hunter said that Bureau of Indian Affairs Commissioner John Collier instructed him "to undertake development work and Indian relief in Canyon de Chelly at the earliest moment." [63] Erosion work and trail work were to be conducted.

All agreed that the canyon rim opposite White House Ruin "must become a Lookout point, reached by automobile, and that a horse and pedestrian trail must be constructed from this point to the canyon floor." A second trail was also considered from the canyon floor near the junction of Canyon de Chelly and Canyon del Muerto to the rim. Both planned trails were studied and surveyed by engineers. [64]

Pinkley sent the Park Service Director the plans and profile for White House Trail that he had approved and signed. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was funding the project, and since they could not authorize funds for building a tourist trail, they approved the project as a path for sheep and goats. [65]

Opposition to the proposed trail was voiced by Frederick K. Vreeland of Santa Fe. Pinkley sent him a letter expressing his reasons for favoring the trail and stressing that it would not lead to an increase in vandalism. [66] Vreeland, however, was unhappy with Pinkley's reasons for the trail and declared that the Park Service was not sufficiently concerned with preservation. [67] Pinkley replied that the Service would soon have a full-time person stationed there. In addition the inhabitants of a Navajo farm at the foot of the trail would watch to see if visitors descended, which Pinkley doubted they would. [68] The historical assistant of the Park Service, W. J. Winter, supported Pinkley in this controversy. [69]

A Mr. Gray conducted surveys for the trail. By July 1934, with 33 Navajos under a white foreman working on it, the trail was 80 percent completed. [70]

Collier, hesitant to approve a road from Chinle to White House Overlook, was impressed with Gray's work on the trail but objected to plans of asphalting it on the grounds it would destroy the natural beauty of the canyon. [71] Collier also questioned the tunnel work there, [72] and in fact, asked that the Canyon de Chelly National Monument be returned to Bureau of Indian Affairs jurisdiction. [73]

The Secretary of Interior wrote Demaray asking for a report on road work at de Chelly. [74] Responding to this, Demaray stated that the trail work and erosion work were "the result of a development program drafted more than a year ago." [75] He stated that

no plans have been considered for the building of roads on the floor of either Del Muerto or Monument canyons. During periods when the canyons are dry visitors may be transported in automobile over the sandy floors with oversize tires. Such traffic should not interfere seriously with the Indian life in the canyon, which the National Park Service is extremely anxious to maintain in unimpaired condition. [76]

Furthermore, Demaray stated that there was already a rim road (which needed improvement) and that the White House Trail was being built from this road into the canyon in order to "permit closer access to this ruin [White House] when cars cannot get up the floor of the canyon." [77] He explained that the project was set up by the Indian Service ECW project and utilized Indian labor under the direction of Park Service engineers. He said "the project was considered and agreed to in principle by both the Indian and National Park Services." [78]

In explaining the trail and tunnel, he stated that they were "planned with the safety and convenience of the traveler in mind, and according to the best Park Service standards." The tunnel was built "to prevent excessive scarring, as well as [to] pass dangerous points with a maximum of safety." He stated that oil surface treatment was proposed in order to eliminate dust. [79]

Citing the recent appointment of a custodian for de Chelly, Demaray said that the area would be properly protected and the custodian would "coordinate the various interests of the Indians with those of the visitor." In addition, he believed

that the National Park Service is the proper agency to protect and interpret archeological areas such as that at Canyon de Chelly. It is felt that the rights of all American citizens in these areas transcend those of any individual or group of individuals, just as in other cases where the Nation, by action of the Congress or Executive, has set aside sites because of their national scenic, historic, or scientific importance. [80]

In closing, Demaray recommended that "no effort be made to amend the Canyon de Chelly Act to return the area to the Navajo Tribe as suggested in Mr. Collier's memorandum. . ." [81]

Collier, in turn, approved route 1 of section c for the trail, but objected to oiling or asphalting the path. [82] Collier then agreed to the reallocation of $6,000 from the erosion control project to trail work. [83]

Meanwhile, Budlong was very pleased with the work on the trail. He believed it was the "main gateway" to the canyon. [84] By October the trail was 3,419 feet in length and the tunnel was almost completed. In November Budlong reported that the White House Trail was completed. It was 4,085 feet long with a descent of approximately 548 feet. [85]

Budlong had several ideas on road development at de Chelly: (1) he did not "want to see this Monument have any roads which will connect at any halfway points with any main highway"; [86] (2) he wanted all visitors to check in and out at headquarters; (3) he frowned on having rim roads located too close to the Indians who lived on the rims during the winter; and (4) he believed that seeing cars along the rims from the bottom of the canyon would detract from the area's beauty. [87] Stressing the need to build roads carefully and consider their possible effects, Budlong hoped that the Park Service would follow his suggestions and use foresight in their planning. [88]

In 1936 Cammerer wrote to Collier commenting on the poor condition of the road from the Thunderbird Ranch to the "Lookout" and on to Ganado. He stated that he was against overdevelopment of roads in the area, but this road was so in need of repair that the Park Service would provide $500-$1,000 if agreed to by him. Cammerer ended his letter by lamenting about his car getting "hung up" and scraped badly on this road. [89] Collier thought that work on this road was justified but wanted to check with his superintendent first. He added that he had never had trouble with his car on that road but supposed that the new "low-slung" cars might have a harder time. [90]

As the years progressed, more work was done on roads leading to de Chelly as well as on roads and trails within the monument. In 1937 the second custodian of Canyon de Chelly, Johnwill Faris, wrote the Park Service Director in reference to a complaint about a stretch of road within de Chelly's boundaries. Both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Department of Agriculture said that the road was under Park Service jurisdiction, which made Faris happy because the actual ownership was hazy. A Mr. H. H. Collins complained of the inherent hazardous conditions of the road, and Faris mentioned in his letter the numerous blind curves, high centers, and bad mud holes. [91] Besides recommending that repair work be done on the Lukachukai road north of headquarters, Faris hoped that it would be finished quickly because of the fact that more and more Indians were driving vehicles. He believed that many of them were poor drivers and if one drove off the rim, "it would be most embarrassing to our Service." [92]

By 1939 several fairly easy routes to Canyon de Chelly were suggested: one was from Gallup or Chambers on Highway 66; another was from Kayenta and the Hopi Villages; and a third was from Shiprock by way of Sweetwater and Round Rock. [93] The road from Chinle to Lukachukai was considered less preferable because of the wash at Chinle. [94] The best route, however, seemed to be from Gallup. Pinkley wrote that the road had been improved greatly and it took only about 2 hours to make the trip. [95]

However, in direct opposition to Pinkley's remarks were the sentiments of Ranger Quintin Bradley at de Chelly. He said visitation was low because of the bad roads leading to the monument and said that people told him that the road from Gallup to Canyon de Chelly was "little more than wagon tracks." Furthermore, rangers at Grand Canyon declared that traveling on roads via the Hopi Village to de Chelly was "practically suicide." [96]

During the years 1940 and 1941 work was done by the Civilian Conservation Corps-Indian Division services on White House Trail, the roadway from Twin Trails to Mummy Cave, and other rim road and trail projects. [97] As the war years approached, there was still a great deal of work needed on roads and trails.

Concessions

The Thunderbird Ranch handled special trips as well as lodging for visitors who came to Canyon de Chelly. In October 1932 Leon H. (Cozy) McSparron bought out his partner, Hartley T. Seymour, and became sole owner of the Thunderbird Ranch. Pinkley believed that McSparron "has some pretty good size [sic] obligations to meet but if he keeps his health he will pull through and I am sure he will work well with us in the development of Canyon de Chelly." [98] On February 28, 1933, McSparron was issued a trading license at Chinle that was good for 1 year starting February 12, 1933. [99]

McSparron also received a Hotel or Camp Permit good for the year 1933. According to article 13 of this permit, which was approved by A. G. Moskey, Acting Associate Director, National Park Service:

13. This operation shall consist of the usual operations conducted in any trading post under the regulations of the United States Indian Office for trading posts located elsewhere on the Navajo Indian Reservation. This permit includes the operation of the Thunderbird Guest Ranch, including the transportation of visitors up the Canyons del Muerto and de Chelly, at rates to be approved by the Director, Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations. "Transportation of visitors" shall include transportation by automobile, saddle horses, teams and wagons, or otherwise, and shall include pack and camping outfits. [100]

Before approving this license, Demaray wanted to know more about the permit and operation. [101] Pinkley answered by stating:

The intent of this first permit is to legalize Mr. McSparron's operations at de Chelly pending proper investigation by Mr. Gable of the exact status of the investment, volume of business, etc. [102]

Pinkley also said that the nominal fee ($5.00) was to be revised in the future if necessary. He said that McSparron was not making much profit, and

if a heavy fee were levied he would be compelled to pass it on to the Indians. The trading post is very much a part of the Canyon de Chelly picture and it seems to me that we ought not to hold McSparron up simply because he is there and can't very well get out. When travel develops to the point of bringing him profitable tourist trade, that will be a different story. [103]

Demaray accepted these explanations but called to Pinkley's attention conditions 16 and 17, which were inserted after McSparron agreed to the permit. Demaray asked Pinkley to get McSparron's approval of these new items. [104]

On December 5, 1933, McSparron agreed to the two new conditions:

16. It is understood that the fee stipulated in this permit is not to establish a precedent and will be subject to revision at the time of any further renewal.

17. This permit is accepted by the permittee with the express understanding that it carries no rights of renewal and is issued for temporary use only and may be cancelled at any time in the discretion of the Director of the Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations. [105]

Custodian Budlong commented upon the assistance McSparron extended him at de Chelly during 1934, although later the two men would have a major disagreement. [106] In fact, two visitors to Canyon de Chelly, Dorothy and John Keur, were elated over the hospitality shown them by the McSparrons as well as by the Budlongs. The Keurs were impressed with the trading post and remarked that they were "sure if Cozy hadn't pushed us out of the trading post we would still be looking at his museum of blankets, pottery and paintings." [107]

In 1935, however, McSparron wrote Pinkley and expressed his desire not to renew his concessioner permit because it was too much trouble and there was not enough tourist business to make it worthwhile. [108] Pinkley forwarded the request to the Park Service Director. He linked McSparron's reasons to financial losses as well as to the boundary controversy (discussed in Chapter 3). Pinkley was inclined not to force the issue until the boundary question was settled. [109] Pinkley did however, favor issuing a permit to Camillo Garcia at Canyon de Chelly. [110]

Demaray believed that Pinkley should issue a permit to McSparron because of the services he rendered to Government agencies as well as to visitors. In addition, Demaray stated that

because of doubt which exists as to whether or not his store is actually within the monument area no financial report or franchise fee will be required of him until that question is definitely settled. This decision will enable Mr. McSparron to transport visitors up the canyon and in other ways to retain his official connection with the national parks, but will not impose any undue burdens in the way of preparing reports for the small amount of business transacted. [111]

Charles L. Gable, chief auditor of the Park Service, also believed that McSparron should be issued a permit, especially since Garcia had received one and because such a permit would not require a financial report or fee. [112] This arrangement was approved by Moskey, and permits for McSparron were issued for 1934 and 1935. [113]

Budlong had heard of the decision earlier and wrote to Pinkley expressing his disapproval. His letter shows clearly the poor state of his relations with McSparron.

Hell's bell! So Cozy gets his permit sans fee, sans statement of financial responsibility, and now must feel more than ever before, that he is a pretty big bug in this rug, and able to do as he blanked pleases, and will have "protection" for all misdemeanors et. al. This damned "intimate connection with the various Government services" is, alas, too true. But unless I am sadly mistaken there is a chance that in another two years we may begin to feel that perhaps neither Soil Erosion Service, Indian Service, nor Mr. McSparron owns Canyon de Chelly National Monument, but that the National Park Service may properly call this Monument its own offspring. . . . And you can be assured of some pothunting, and insufficient protection of this Monument in spite of we two doing our damnest. I've seen too much, and know too much.

.   .   .    .   .

This Monument and the Service are too big to be ruled by an individual who is not connected with either, and whose interests in this matter are of a purely personal and monetary nature. . . . [114]

For the year 1935, the following rates were approved for the Thunderbird Ranch:

Rooms, per person, per day	—	$3.50
Meals, each	—	1.00
Horses, per day, each	—	3.50
Horses, per 1/2 day, each	—	2.00
Guide service on horseback trips, per day	—	3.50
Trip by auto to canyon: one to four passengers, per day (or $5.00 per person for four passengers)	—	20.00
Five passengers in same car, per day	—	22.50
Lunches put up for trips, each	—	.75	[115]

There were, needless to say, several complaints lodged against the Thunderbird Ranch for insufficient service or high prices. John E. Long of Chinle complained of the high cost of tourist accommodations and the limited time allotted for guiding tourists. [116] Another complaint was lodged by Mrs. B. L. Murphy of Globe, Arizona. She thought Canyon de Chelly was a "lovely and wonderful" place but that it should not have such high-priced accommodations at so "unaccommodating" a place as the Thunderbird Ranch. The Murphys did not stay there but did rent horses from the Navajos to go up the canyon. Mrs. Murphy complained that "the saddle I rode was so old it had to be covered with a blanket and the single loop of iron used as a stirrup chafed my ankle so I was lame for days." [117]

After returning from the ride, the Murphys were refused a meal because they did not have a room at the Thunderbird Ranch. She stated that the Park Service was kind enough to take them to the Indian School mess hall for dinner. In closing her letter, she again noted that they were not disappointed with the canyon but with the poor accommodations. [118] Other complaints by individuals centered around the Thunderbird's refusal to serve them even though they had rooms there and the high cost of automobile travel up the canyon. [119] Nevertheless, McSparron was granted another permit for the 1936 season. [120]

During the same year relations between Budlong and McSparron became strained. A report on this tension was brought to Arno B. Cammerer in June 1936 by a Mrs. James A. Vaughan of Minnesota. She reported that Cozy was not permitted to take parties into the canyon for overnight camping. Apparently Cozy had done this formerly and had also taken parties into the canyon early in the morning—both activities now prohibited by Budlong. [121] Cammerer said that he checked the regulations and Budlong was correct in his restrictions, but Cammerer questioned whether Budlong possessed the diplomacy requisite for his position. He was not impressed with Budlong, thinking him "too stiff and unflexible in demeanor." Cammerer felt that Budlong would be a good man to work under the leadership of another, "but not as our main representative who has to get along not only with visitors but also with the operators." Cammerer quickly asserted that his sentiments did not mean that he wanted McSparron to run the canyon. [122]

He advised Pinkley to try to settle the matter quickly because rumors of discord at de Chelly had already issued from various other sources. Cammerer felt that because McSparron had previously been conducting these trips now in dispute, he should be exempted from the regulations; more importantly, Cammerer suggested that Budlong be transferred. Cammerer said that he liked Budlong's wife and was a close friend of Budlong's father, with whom he had discussed the problem and who said he would talk to his son. [123]

Demaray favored Cammerer's recommendation to exempt McSparron from the regulations. [124] Pinkley concurred in this, and it was approved by Charles West, Acting Secretary of Interior. [125] In addition, Budlong was transferred, and Johnwill Faris became the new custodian on December 1, 1936. [126]

In 1936 McSparron received his permit for that year. The rate schedule for the Thunderbird Ranch was the same as mentioned above. [127] Later on in 1937 McSparron received permission to siphon water from the Park Service water system for the Thunderbird Ranch. His windmill with its stock tank and pump, which was objectionable to the landscape's beauty, might then be dismantled. McSparron received a special use permit which cost $5.00 for the first 120,000 gallons used during the year and an additional .50 per 1,000 gallons in excess of this amount. [128]

In 1938 Cozy tried to have the Park Service build new structures for him, as had been done for the concessioner at Bandelier National Monument. Hugh Miller, assistant superintendent for Southwestern Monuments, explained that due to the uncertainty of the boundary and the lack of a Civilian Conservation Corps camp at de Chelly the proposal was not feasible, at least at that time. One comment is of particular interest:

In the meantime we do not think Cozy should be too self-conscious about his development. We all like the old trading post and think it gives real color to the foreground at de Chelly. [129]

In 1940 Custodian Ted Cronyn reported that Roman Hubbell of Gallup was planning to conduct tours up the canyon in competition with McSparron. Cronyn opposed this new operation and requested advice on how to handle the matter. [130] He was informed that Hubbell must apply for a permit to operate a commercial tour service of this sort, but that general policy was to disapprove applications to provide services already available. [131] Cronyn informed Hubbell of this requirement, [132] but because no more appears regarding this matter, evidently McSparron remained without a competitor.

By 1941, Cozy was reporting the best season ever at the Thunderbird Ranch. [133] He also acquired a contract for electricity. [134] Prior to this, he had installed a 10-kilowatt generating unit that put out a 60-cycle, 110-volt, alternating current. This and the electric contract vastly improved the Thunderbird's services, enabling McSparron, for example, to install a frozen food unit and an ice cream counter. [135]

Erosion Control and Protection

Erosion control and overall protection of the ruins and physical environment have always been a major concern in the development and growth of Canyon de Chelly National Monument. The work that Morris did at White House has already been discussed. Recommendations made by the Hamilton Reconnaissance Report in 1932 indicated that several of the ruins, especially Antelope House and White House, were in need of repairs due to wash erosion during previous flood periods. The estimates for repair work at Antelope and White houses were $1,350 and $600 respectively. [136]

Hamilton also advised the use of fencing and other protective devices. "Navajo farms," Hamilton believed, "should be protected by breakwaters when needed," and he suggested building several diversion dams. [137]

Commenting on this report, Demaray stated that "some definite steps should be taken in the very near future to put in the erosion protection recommended by Engineer Hamilton." [138] Furthermore, he believed that all Indian workers should be supervised by a white foreman. [139] John Merriam also concurred with Hamilton's recommendations. "The plans for protection of the ruins," stated Merriam, "interest me greatly. Everything possible must be done to protect the ruins and at the same time to maintain naturalness of the region." [140]

Work was also done in 1932 by Park Service Naturalist McKee whose study of the formations at Canyon del Muerto was being financed by Merriam of the Carnegie Institute. [141] McKee studied the Coconino formation at del Muerto and reported on sandstone formations at del Muerto and de Chelly. [142]

Erosion control was a main subject of the meeting held at Canyon de Chelly in April 1934. The group advised against using basket dams or rock revetments because of their tendency to settle into riverbeds. They advised using woven wire fences with cottonwood posts and "a liberal amount of bush to facilitate silting up back of the fence." Two double lines of fences were considered necessary to protect planted vegetation against grazing sheep and goats. [143] Between the fences willows, cottonwood trees, grasses, and other native growth were to be planted in order to "make a permanent barrier which will not only prevent erosion, but will also cause a natural deposition of silt back of the barrier, thus reclaiming a large farm area." [144]

A survey of the existing vegetation in Canyon de Chelly indicated the following: box elder, cottonwood, willow, gooseberry, greasewood, apple trees, wild olive, hackberry, and walnut willows. Again it was suggested that this work be done by Indians under the direction of a white foreman. [145] On April 28, 1934, the Navajos at Canyon de Chelly approved projects to improve their "park." [146] No opposition was expected from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. [147]

Chief Engineer Kittredge was concerned, however, about the areas between the two fences. Because most of it (about 50 feet) was sand, he felt the Indians would not complain about grazing rights being taken from them. [148] The Soil Erosion Service decided against the double fence idea and decided to have the Indians remove their stock from the canyon for 3 years. [149]

Kittredge took issue with this plan. He believed that 3 years or even 10 years might not be enough time to provide a better grazing area. The Indians would be justified, believed Kittredge, in complaining about broken promises and this would be extremely embarassing. [150] He concluded that

the whole problem of protection of the river banks against over-grazing is so easily and simply handled by the placing of the vegetation between fences that I can see no reason for laying ourselves open to broken promises and loss of confidence in us by the Indians by trying to make promises covering problems regarding which we have no surety. A fifty-foot strip of vegetation between fences and fully protected and encouraged by the use of Indian labor will be an example of what can be accomplished. It should have a far reaching influence upon the further development of the Indians' private holdings, and one which will encourage among the Indians the spirit of protection and restoration. [151]

This dispute over jurisdiction stemmed from the fact that the Park Service wanted erosion work financed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, because they, not the Park Service, controlled the land. H. G. Calkins, Regional Director of the Soil Erosion Service, finally recognized that the Park Service was to control the work in the canyon, but only on this job. Future work would require a restatement of authority. [152] The controversy seemed to continue, as evidenced by letters sent by Commissioner Collier stressing hopes for the Soil Erosion Service's "taking over" erosion work at de Chelly. [153] Kittredge restated that the Park Service should be the controlling organization within a Park Service area. [154] It was then suggested that the solicitor's opinion on the matter be requested, but this was rejected because the Soil Erosion Service was "working under direct instructions from Assistant Secretary Chapman to continue their work within the National Monument without regard to the National Park Service except where their protection work is in the immediate vicinity of Ruins when they shall secure the advance approval of the National Park Service to this work." [155]

The plan for a double fence never materialized, but the Erosion Service plan of having the Indians relinquish grazing rights for 3 years did. Kittredge's fears that this would not be enough time for revegetation were realized, so the Erosion Service devised two new plans of action: he first was to use a double fence; the second involved pursuading the Navajos to completely abandon grazing in Canyon de Chelly and converting it into "strictly a farming area." [156] Kittredge, delighted that the Erosion Service finally saw the need for double fencing, supported both plans. He still feared that the Park Service would appear in a bad light because of the Erosion Service's promise to the Indians and suggested that the Navajos be allowed to return their stock to the valley immediately "in order to maintain our standing with the Indians." [157]

Pinkley supported both the farming plan and the double fencing plan, stating that "the ideal solution of the problem would be to exclude grazing from the canyon permanently and restrict it to farming operations." [158] Pinkley felt, however, that the Park Service would be considered the culprits by the Navajos even though "the Park Service is not responsible for any action taken by the Soil Conservation Service." Thus, he suggested that the double fencing be utilized to solve the problem. [159]

In 1936 another problem arose concerning the introduction of exotic plants into the canyon—a violation of Park Service regulations. The Erosion Service planted Australian tamarisks, willows, and cottonwoods, and the Indian Service was selling fruit trees (apple, plum, and peach) to the Indians. Other plantings included grapevines, Chinese elms, and mulberry trees. Pinkley was concerned about the original terms of the proclamation, which declared that "Navajo occupation was not to be disturbed." [160] He was worried that a "serious conflict would result if this office were asked to apply the general policy toward exotics to Canyon de Chelly," and hoped that the Park Service Director would "investigate all of the circumstances before taking any action to interfere with the plans of the Indian Service agronomists and the Soil Conservation experts in the de Chelly area." [161]

Replying to Pinkley's request, Demaray stated that the planting of fruit trees by the Navajos was well within their rights. Furthermore, Demaray said

common sense dictates that there should be no interference in the plan to furnish better environment for the Indians, even though it happens to violate a rule which has been found valuable in most park and monument areas. [162]

Another conflict in Park Service rules arose over poisoning of rodents and grasshoppers. The Navajos requested that this protection be offered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and were impatient at the delay because many Navajos had begun farming activities. Budlong advised that the Park Service sanction this program even though it violated Service rules. [163]

Pinkley agreed with Budlong and suggested that no action be taken to prevent this work. He believed that

our policy at Canyon de Chelly National Monument is that we are there to protect the ruins and guard and guide visitors, and for no other purpose. We have turned over the problems of handling the Indians, their farming operations, and their stock operations to the Navajo Service. [164]

This decision of the Park Service not to interfere with planting or poisoning, even though it violated their rules, was followed. The only reported loss of stock was a Navajo's team of horses, who had been fed poisoned grain by a son who had been away and did not know that the grain was poisoned. The Park Service, of course, was not responsible for this loss. [165]

On April 10, 1937, a "Cooperative Agreement Between The Director of The National Park Service and The Commissioner of Indian Affairs For The Prevention and Suppression of Fires Occurring Along The Boundaries of Adjoining Indian Reservations and National Parks" was approved. It contained thirteen provisions:

1. That the details of cooperation in fire protection between field units will be worked out by officials of the Indian Service and the National Park Service.

2. That field officers taking official action under authority of this agreement will remain under the jurisdiction of their respective Bureaus.

3. That primary control by lookouts for a given area will be provided by the Park Service and the Indian Service as far as possible without regard to boundary lines and Bureau jurisdiction.

4. That primary lookouts maintained by the Indian Service will be furnished with fire-control maps of adjoining national park areas by the National Park Service, and primary lookouts maintained by the Park Service will be furnished with fire-control maps of adjoining Indian Reservations by the Indian Service.

5. The field officers of the Indian Service will be supplied with copies of fire plans and maps of adjoining national parks and will in turn supply National Park officers with copies of fire plans and maps covering adjoining Indian reservations.

6. That telephone or short-wave radio communication will be established between national parks and adjoining Indian reservations.

7. That fires occurring on Indian reservations and discovered by National Park officers will be reported promptly by them to the Indian Service. Forest officers of the Indian Service will take similar action with respect to fires discovered on national parks.

8. That National Park officers will render assistance to Indian Service officers in fire fighting upon request from such officers in all cases where such action will not leave national park lands unduly exposed to fire danger. Officers of the Indian Service will reciprocate in like manner. All facilities available will be used where necessary by either or both agencies to suppress fires along the adjacent boundaries. In the event of a fire on the Indian Service side of the boundary the first officer, whether Indian Service or Park Service, to reach the fire will take charge. Should a Park Service officer take charge, he will be relieved by an Indian Service officer as soon as the Indian Service is in a position to take over the fire. The same system will apply in case of a fire on the Park Service side of the boundary with the Indian Service officer turning the fire over to the Park Service as soon as the Park Service is in a position to take charge of the fire.

9. That the National Park Service will reimburse the Indian Service for all expenses incurred in extinguishing fires occurring or existing on lands under the protection of the National Park Service. The Indian Service will reimburse the National Park Service for all expenses incurred by the National Park Service in fighting fires outside areas protected by the National Park Service and occurring or existing on Indian lands. In either case, the expense thus incurred shall not exceed $1,000 prior to turning the control of the fire over to the Service on whose lands the fire is located. Reimbursements will be made under the authority of Section 601 of the Act of June 30, 1932 (47 Stat., 417).

10. That in case of a fire spreading from Indian Service lands into National Park Service lands, or vice versa, all expenses incurred by each agency will be prorated in accordance with the area burned on the lands within the confines of each protection agency. Necessary reimbursements will be made on this basis.

11. That the above agreement does not include reimbursement for the services of the Civilian Conservation Corps or year-long employees used in combating fires, but does include reimbursement for the services of all seasonal and per diem employees where such services are paid from forest fire fighting funds for the National Park Service or from "Supression of Forest Fires," "Administration of Indian Forests," or "Expenses, Sale of Timber" funds for the Indian Service. It also includes all other expenses paid from the above-mentioned funds in the process of suppression. All equipment will be assembled and inventoried immediately following each fire and suitable reimbursement made on the basis outlined in the preceding paragraph.

12. That subsidiary field agreements executed under authority hereof between field officers of the National Park Service and the Indian Service shall receive the approval of the Director of the National Park Service and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

13. That this cooperative agreement shall continue in force and effect until terminated by written notice by either party, provided that the notice of termination of the agreement must be given between the dates of November 1 of any year and April 30 of the following year; and that such termination of agreement shall meet with the approval of the Secretary of Interior. [166]

A few days later, a request for field glasses at de Chelly for use in fire prevention and forest protection was submitted to Pinkley. Pinkley replied that at present he could not supply the request but would try to fulfill the need as the year progressed. [167]

A supplement to the 1937 agreement on fire prevention and supression was submitted in 1941 by E. Reeseman Fryer, general superintendent of the Navajo Indian Reservation, and Charles D. Wyatt, custodian at de Chelly. It contained five points.

1. That the lookouts and other employees of the Navajo Service shall report any fire on National Monument lands to the Navajo Service Fire Dispatcher at Window Rock, Arizona. Any such fire thus reported to the Dispatcher shall be reported by him as soon as possible to the Monument Custodian. Likewise, fires discovered by National Monument employees, regardless of what lands they may originate on, shall be reported to the Navajo Service Fire Dispatcher.

2. That any fire threatening lands adjacent to the common boundary between Monument and Reservation shall be reported to both the Monument Custodian and the Forest Officer in charge of protection for the Reservation as soon as possible after it becomes evident that adjoining lands are threatened.

3. That initial control action on any fire threatening lands adjacent to the common boundary shall be taken by the Service most likely to reach the fire first. Such fire discovered from the field shall be attacked promptly by the discovering employee.

4. That in the event of fires on Monument lands, not likely to threaten the Reservation, the Navajo Service shall furnish all assistance requested by the Park Service to the extent that such assistance will not unduly expose Reservation forests to fire danger. In the event of Reservation fires not threatening Monument land, the Navajo Service may request supervisory assistance to be furnished to the extent that the Monument is not unduly exposed to fire hazards.

5. That this subsidiary field agreement shall continue in force until terminated. It may be terminated by either party, provided that written notice of termination shall be given between the dates of November 1, of any year and April 30, of the following year, and provided further that such termination shall meet with the approval of the Director of the National Park Service and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. [168]

After studying the agreement, D. E. Murphy of the Bureau of Indian Affairs believed that several alterations were necessary. He wanted it clarified that "the specific agreement is drawn pursuant to the general agreement and that the provisions of the general agreement are made a part of the specific agreement." [169] Also, he believed that section 5 had to conform to section 13 of the general agreement and that section 2 should be expressed differently and more precisely. In closing, Murphy stated that "your [Fryer's] further consideration of the agreement with the Custodian for the National Park Service will be appreciated and it is believed will result in a very satisfactory agreement." [170]

As the year 1939 ended, erosion control projects were being discussed for the 1940-41 program at de Chelly. [171] Two erosion projects were begun in 1940, at the mouth of de Chelly and at White House Ruin. [172]

At the mouth of de Chelly preventive measures were taken to keep the canyon's flood waters from reaching the Thunderbird Ranch. [173] At White House, rail posts, steel cable, rail tetrahedrons, and diagonal fences were installed. [174] During the following year, projects included stabilization work at White House and Antelope House and rebuilding of a dike to restrain the Rio de Chelly. [175]

Interpretation Programs and Services

Although there was no official stationed on a permanent basis at Canyon de Chelly to handle them, there were approximately 423 visitors in 1931 and 395 in 1932. [176] In 1933, 435 visitors were recorded. [177]

After Budlong, the first custodian, arrived in August 1934, reports concerning interpretive contacts were submitted on a regular basis. Budlong reported 102 visitors in September and included the following specifics: 71 went into the canyon by car; 3 went by horse; and 28 drove along the rim, 18 of whom went down the trail to White House Ruin. During the 1934 travel year there were 650 visitors at Canyon de Chelly. [178]

For safety reasons, it was recommended that cars should have oversized tires when venturing up the canyon. The concessioner's car had 8-inch airwheels. [179] The arrival in July 1935 of James Douglas Harritt, the first temporary ranger assigned to Canyon de Chelly, reduced the burden of visitor contact for Budlong. [180] During the travel year of 1935 (travel years ended in September each year), 988 visitors were counted. [181]

Apparently some complaints were lodged against the "regimentation" of visitors at de Chelly. Pinkley took issue with this complaint, stating that such regulation was needed and Budlong was doing a good job of handling visitors. "All we ask of visitors," declared Pinkley, "is that they allow us to regiment them to the point where we know we have as much property when they leave as when they came." Evidently "regimentation" was needed not only to protect the ruins but also to guard against vandalism. [182]

Another complaint made to Ranger Harritt concerned horses rented from the Thunderbird Ranch and the guide, William McNatt, who also served as a clerk at the trading post. It appeared that McNatt did not keep the group together, and two members of the party became lost in the canyon. With a storm threatening, these lost souls feared that "a flood" of water might come rushing down upon them, but they were rescued before meeting such a fate. [183]

Ideas for a museum at Canyon de Chelly were discussed at the 1931 meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico. In fact, objective number two suggested a museum consisting of relics taken from the ruins plus other material depicting the various stages of aboriginal life. [184] Later on, in 1934, Collier suggested that in accordance with his policy of excluding commercialization, retaining a primitive state at Canyon de Chelly, and limiting "civilization" to a minimum, the only museum display should be a native hogan. [185]

In 1935 Budlong expressed his ideas on the establishment of a museum at de Chelly. It was, to say the least, a grandiose scheme. The museum was to be housed in the headquarters, and would contain a large model of Canyon de Chelly and a slide projector showing picturesque scenes. Also, he wanted the walls decorated with photographs of the major ruins and of the Navajos. Charts were to be made depicting geological formations. [186]

Furthermore, Budlong hoped to have several rooms exclusively devoted to geology, archaeology, and anthropology or ethnology, and another room could be devoted to flora and fauna. In each room he suggested installing "a device consisting of a central supporting column with provision made for its rotation." Attached to this column would be hinged glass frames about 3 by 5 feet. The overall effect would be "like pages of a book, if one considers the thing as a book with no covers, the thing opened out to form a circle." The frames would contain photographs on both sides and "with such a device in each exhibit room, details of the various 'ologies' could be gone into at great length." [187]

On December 30, 1935, a New Year's Eve party was given by the Canyon de Chelly Chapter of Navajos at the White House Trail. Custodian Budlong attended and was impressed by the 350 Navajos in costume. [188]

The rules and regulations for Canyon de Chelly National Monument consisted of thirteen items that emphasized the uniqueness of de Chelly among Park Service areas. Visitors were cautioned to respect the Navajos who were living in the canyon, and the rules clearly indicated that the Navajos were not on "display." The thirteen provisions were as follows:

1. Camping within canyons is prohibited.

   The canyons are the home of some 350 Indians who naturally do not want to be disturbed at all hours of the day and night by parties of visitors.

2. Visitors wishing to descend the White House Trail must be accompanied.

   This is for the protection of the visitors as well as the Indians. The Indians do not want to be bothered by visitors entering their homes at all hours and experience proves the visitor is not always courteous and sometimes gets himself into trouble if unattended.

3. Visitors who wish to ride horseback within the canyons must be accompanied.

   The same reasons given under rule two obtain here.

4. Hiking within canyons is prohibited.

   Due to the long distances and the treacherous sand it is not feasible; we have not the personnel to accompany parties; unattended parties might get into trouble.

5. Due to their extreme instability, all ruins are, for the present, closed to the public, except such as may be decided upon by the Custodian.

   This rule is for the safety of the visitor.

6. When the canyons are in shape to permit general car travel, visitors are taken in caravan.

   This is for the safety of visitors who would otherwise get stuck in quicksands or cause trouble with the Indians by unmeaning discourtesy. There are two trips per day: one at nine a.m., returning by eleven-thirty; the other at two p.m., returning by four-thirty.

7. Visitors may not remove any potsherds, or any artifacts of any sort, or do any excavating.

   This is the law. Climbing of or on walls of ruins is prohibited. It is needlessly endangering life and property.

8. Any prehistoric material (artifacts) bought or otherwise acquired from the Indians within the canyons, or from Indians or white persons or any persons, within the boundaries of this monument, shall be confiscated by the custodian or ranger.

   All such material is U.S. Government property and carrying it away is theft.

9. White House Trail is the only trail which may be used by visitors; but the custodian may make exceptions to this rule when, in his judgment it is wise and proper to do so.

   This regulation will forestall trouble caused by unattended visitors interfering with the Indians or getting into trouble on dangerous trails.

10. Visitors may not enter Navajo hogans, or take photographs of any Indians within the boundaries of this National Monument, except where such permission is granted by the custodian, and he shall first obtain permission of the Indian or Indians in question.

11. Persons desiring to camp within the boundaries of this National Monument must be allotted a camping site by the custodian.

    This will forestall unintentional interference with the rights of the Indians.

12. Visitors desiring to drive their own cars within canyons, must go in caravan, and such caravan shall be led by a car containing a ranger, or a custodian, or the custodian's representative. VISITORS TAXING THEIR CARS WITHIN THE CANYONS DO SO AT THEIR OWN RISK, AND THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE TO, OR LOSS OF, SUCH CARS.

13. Visitors arriving after the departure of one caravan must wait until time for the next caravan and join it.

    This is for, the safety of the visitor and to prevent interference with the normal life of the Indians. [189]

In June 1936, 209 visitors came to Canyon de Chelly, the largest number ever recorded in one month since Budlong's arrival. Among the trips were 5 to White House Ruin, 21 to the South Rim, 19 car trips into the canyon and 2 horseback trips. [190] The month of September, however, topped this number, with 217 people recorded. Among the visitors was Senator Carl Hayden. [191]

To accommodate this influx of visitors, Budlong suggested that two-way radio communication be installed at the headquarters (custodian's residence) and in the Government pickup truck. He wanted both a transmitter and receiver in each. [192] These devices would enable the custodian and the ranger to communicate instantly with each other if certain problems or emergencies arose. He also suggested that an hourly call be established. In closing Budlong stated that

I consider such two-way radio communication absolutely necessary at this National Monument in the interests of better service to the public, and in the interests of preservation of valuable archaeological material. It is not a far-fetched idea in any sense. [193]

Pinkley, who received this request, wrote Kittredge, chief engineer, "concerning the practicability of radio communication as outlined by Mr. Budlong and a rough estimate of the cost for installation and the probable cost of maintenance and operation." [194] Kittredge replied that the cost of the car radio would be $750. Maintenance would be about $20 a year for tubes under ordinary conditions and an additional $20 would be needed for an overhaul once every 6 months under normal circumstances. [195]

The headquarters set, with its own power plant, would cost $1,250. Kittredge did not state whether such a setup was necessary at de Chelly, although he said it was a practical plan used "all over the State of Washington for the past two years." [196] Assistant Chief Engineer A. W. Burney stated that "unless you have a considerable sum to expend for radio communication in Canyon de Chelly two-way radio communication will not be possible." [197]

Pinkley answered Budlong's request for a two-way radio set in the negative. He stated that since the cost would be $2,000, "the installation is out of the question." [198] Pinkley did say that he would bear the idea in mind "for inclusion in any new programs which might come up." [199]

After Budlong's departure on November 30, 1936, the new custodian, Johnwill Faris, took over. He recorded that 337 visitors came to de Chelly in August 1937. Aiding him in the interpretative work were Harritt and Alfred Peterson, another temporary ranger. [200] In October the Navajos held a fire dance on the rim, and Faris reported that from 1,500 to 2,000 whites and Indians were in attendance. [201]

During the 1938 season, 1,573 visitors were counted. [202] Aiding in interpretation programs were temporary Rangers Bill Lippincott, Woody Spires, and Ted Cronyn. The best month for visitors was August, when 362 people came to view the canyon. On November 14 Faris left Canyon de Chelly and went to White Sands. Replacing him as custodian was Ted Cronyn. [203]

A guard wall was constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps-Indian Service at the first lookout on the south rim of Canyon de Chelly in 1939. [204] Cronyn reported that he loaned his "sources of information" on Canyon de Chelly to a teacher at the Indian School in Chinle for classroom use, and also gave a talk on the Park Service to 40 Navajos at the Civilian Conservation Corps camp. [205]

Apparently there still was not a museum at de Chelly because Cronyn declared that "we are going, to need a museum here pretty soon; almost a dozen artifacts from the canyons have been collected." [206] Other accessions were donated by Dr. Seidelman, a Navajo Service doctor, and by Dr. Noble. Seidelman donated photographs of Navajos and Mummy Cave, while Noble donated views of the canyons and "other things." [207] Cronyn also reported that a Navajo brought in an old rope, feather blanket material, and a unique sandal. Another Navajo brought in two stone hammers. [208] Also ready to be placed in a future museum display were several small artifacts, hair and yucca braids, and yucca quids. [209]

Visitation continued to mount: 384 people in June, 358 in July, 364 in August, and 292 in September. Aiding Cronyn in his work was James Spuhler, the temporary ranger in 1939. In June a young Navajo visitor was instructed to remove his initials from the canyon wall next to one of the ruins. Cronyn reported that other initials there would also have to be removed. [210] As the year closed, Cronyn complained of bread wrappers and peach can labels discarded by the Navajos. [211]

Although there was not an actual campground established at Canyon de Chelly by 1939, campers were allowed to choose sites either beside the custodian's residence, near the pumphouse, or out on the rim. The least preferable site was near the pumphouse, Cronyn reported. [212] Apparently work on a permanent site was contemplated, because a Mr. Richey was considering locating it near the pumphouse where shade was afforded by a row of cottonwood trees. Cronyn said that this site was not advisable because Navajos were accustomed to camping there and because the area was subject to floods. Other sites suggested were on top of the hill behind the custodian's residence, in a draw west of the residence, and in a draw east of the residence—although this last contained Navajo dwellings. [213]

In August 1940, 537 visitors came to Canyon de Chelly—the highest number et recorded. During the entire year there were 2,738 visitations. [214] Temporary Ranger Quintin Bradley aided in erecting directional signs for the area as well as cat and dog signs. In September Cronyn left for Kings Canyon National Park in California. Replacing him was Charles Wyatt, who became the fourth custodian at Canyon de Chelly. [215]

Plans for a multiplex display were laid in April 1941. More directional signs were erected and more visitor contact was possible due to the presence of three rangers and one custodian in July. Wyatt reported the following minutes of contact time for July: Wyatt—2,060 minutes, Edwin C. Alberts—1,450 minutes, Wesley Hurt—2,560 minutes, and James Spuhler—3,095 minutes. [216]

Many reports were made of wild animals seen in and around Canyon de Chelly. For example, in 1941 several Navajos reported seeing turkeys far up Monument Canyon. Tuly Bia, another Navajo, reported that his dog attacked a badger and was badly hurt. Many badger burrows and tracks were discovered around White House Overlook and the headquarters. [217]

Other animals sighted were skunks in the vicinity of the headquarters and the Thunderbird Ranch; coyotes, whose pelts were said to be used by Navajos in their ceremonies; [218] and two black bears. Chauncey Neboyia, a Navajo, reported that the numerous ground squirrels sighted were very scarce about 15 years ago. [219]

During these years, several articles appeared publicizing Canyon de Chelly. For example, Betty Budlong wrote "Navajo Sand Painting-De Chelly" for Southwestern Monuments, August Supplement, 1935, and Earl H. Morris wrote "Mummy Cave" for Natural History 41-42, 1938.

During the early years of development at Canyon de Chelly (1931-41), many necessary tasks were accomplished, but much additional work remained to be done. As war clouds gathered over Europe and spread to America in 1941, the effects of mobilization were felt at Canyon de Chelly.