Canyon de Chelly Administrative History

The crisis in relations between the Park Service and the Navajo tribe came to a head late in 1962. A retrospective account, which Meredith Guillet sent to the new director, George Hartzog, in December 1964, provides an overall picture of conditions and how the Service tried to meet them:

Lack of success in negotiations with the Navajo Tribe over the last twelve years, and antagonism toward the National Park Service by a certain faction of the Tribal Council had caused some concern to former Director Wirth. At the dedication ceremony for the Four Corners Monument in the Fall of 1962, Secretary Udall was approached by certain members of the Navajo Tribal Council seeking his support for legislation to return Canyon de Chelly National Monument to the Tribe. The apparent antagonism to or distrust of National Park Service Policy had led to several Tribal Council resolutions, among which were one prohibiting the establishment of any more National Parks or Monuments on Tribal Lands, and one to use every effort possible to return Navajo, Rainbow Bridge and Canyon de Chelly National Monuments to the Tribe. There was an apparent breakdown in our relations with the Tribe that was forming a formidable barrier to acquisition of additional lands needed for development of Navajo and Rainbow Bridge National Monuments as well as right-of-way over certain Tribal Lands. The above, coupled with complaints by other interested parties, led to my being called to Washington in late November 1962, by Secretary Udall and Director Wirth. I was chosen because many years of my life had been spent among the Navajo People both before and after I entered the National Park Service, and it was felt that I was best qualified for this assignment.

The duties of my new assignment, as broadly stated by Secretary Udall, were to improve the image of the National Park Service, and establish (or re-establish) good 'grass roots' relations with the rank and file of the Navajo People. One primary objective was the facilitating of land exchange legislation and cooperative agreements at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

It was agreed that an Assistant Superintendent position (GS-11) would be established to handle the 'leg work' of running the [Canyon de Chelly National] Monument allowing me more time for Indian Relations work. The Secretary requested and Director Wirth concurred, that in matters of enough importance there might be a bypassing of regular channels of communication, although such has not occurred to date. It was agreed that the success of this assignment required a broader leeway in choice of personnel, as well as other action concerning relations with the Tribe, than would ordinarily be granted. I was specifically instructed to encourage the employment of Navajo Indians whenever and wherever qualified applicants were available.

I was in Washington for a week during which time I was briefed on the status of certain land negotiations, etc., and prepared a memorandum of recommendations on certain items which I felt necessary for the success of the assignment. These recommendations were approved by the Director and Secretary Udall. I will not enumerate them. [1]

With the return of Guillet in January 1963, conditions at Canyon de Chelly underwent a radical change. Relations with the Navajos especially on the local level, improved dramatically. Guillet's primary responsibility was to be the handling of relations with the Navajos. He would have his son-in-law, John E. Cook, as his administrative assistant so that he could devote more time to the problems encountered. [2]

Until Guillet arrived, Ranger Roy Rainey was acting superintendent. [3] There had been changes at Chinle since Guillet was last stationed there, but it was still a relatively remote area. The only shopping facilities were trading posts with limited merchandise. Public Health Service medical facilities were available only in cases of extreme emergency, and all other medical services had to be obtained at Ganado, while dental care was available no closer than Gallup. The only churches were the Catholic, Mormon, and Presbyterian missions. Television reception had recently been made possible by a relay translator. [4]

There are hints in Guillet's early monthly reports that more than Navajo relations had suffered during the months preceding his return. For February he reported merely that "a great deal has been accomplished in generally improving the administration of the area, particularly as related to improved relations with the Navajo Tribe and others." [5]

His monthly report for March was somewhat more explicit:

A great deal of time has been consumed in straightening out the general administration of Canyon de Chelly from accounting to filing. . . .

We have requested authority for 6 additional WAE laborers in order to get long needed maintenance accomplished while it can be done. [6]

He was allowed the increase in maintenance personnel, thus doubling his force, and also secured a promotion for David Gorman. For April he mentioned the "continued improvement of administrative control and training of employees." [7]

In all this there is a strong implication that Berger, frustrated in his efforts to maintain good relations with the Navajos and unable to understand why he failed, had become so discouraged that other aspects of management had also suffered.

There was little that Guillet could do for relations at the tribal level at first. In an upset election Raymond Nakai had recently replaced Paul Jones as tribal chairman and it would take some time for the new administration to become settled, particularly since many of the old delegates to the tribal council had been reelected and were expected to oppose great changes. Guillet felt that it would be well to wait until the political situation stabilized before approaching tribal officials. [8]

In the meantime he reestablished his friendships with the Navajos he had known before and made a horseback trip up del Muerto to assess wind damage to homes and irrigation ditches by a recent storm. [9]

There was very little that happened at the monument that did not affect the local Navajos in one way or another, however, and Guillet turned his attention to building rapport at the grass-roots level.

An interagency cleanup campaign was initiated in February. Guillet did not assume that merely because the local Bureau and Navajo agencies were involved he would automatically have cooperation from local Navajo residents. Before attempting to clear the rim of old car bodies and other trash, he got permission from the people living along the rim drive. [10] By the following month he was able to report success:

General cleanup of the area was accomplished with the cooperation of the Indians and the BIA. Many of the old car wrecks and bodies scattered near the Hogans along the Rim Drive were hauled off and the general appearance of roadways improved by cleaning up all trash. [11]

The reorganization of the interpretive program reflects his imagination in taking Navajo matters into consideration in all facets of his administration while trying to improve services to the general public. Expansion of services included assigning a ranger to guide tours of the canyons for visitors who came in their own 4-wheel-drive vehicles and initiating interpretive talks on the rim. The interpretive staff was also given the job of training drivers for the Thunderbird tours and the local Navajos who served as guides for parties entering the canyons by foot, horseback, and wagon. It was even proposed that campfire talks be given in both English and Navajo. Guest speakers, including Navajo tribal rangers, would be invited to participate in evening programs. [12] A special permit was instituted to better control travel within the canyons. [13] The regional office, however, felt that the continued requirement of a permit for this purpose would necessitate a change in the established regulations. [14] Guillet explained his reasons for instituting the procedure and apparently continued to use the permit system. As he described the situation,

Many people read articles concerning travel in Canyon de Chelly by Navajo wagons. Several of the articles even list the names of local Indians who have wagons available for this type of experience, and due to this many people have dealt directly with those same Indians. Accordingly they are entering the canyons within the law: either with a guide (most of the Navajos who provide these services are also authorized guides) or as a personal guest of the Navajo providing the service. The latter we now have no control over. The proposed permit would allow us to get a chance to contact these people, inform them of regulations and provide interpretive services as well as preventive law enforcement.

Another problem is our local "Sunday" travel from surrounding communities. These people do not consider themselves visitors and thus create a situation which our proposed permit, added to existing regulations, can help overcome. At present a new sign appears at the mouth of the canyon which quates [sic] the regulation. [15]

His arguments were convincing, and so the regional director recommended changing the regulations. [16] Whether further action was taken is not known. The only formal visitor complaint—a very mild one—to this increased vigilance came from John W. Kennedy, an Indian trader in Gallup, and Guillet was able to explain his need for new restrictions to this longtime friend with little difficulty, noting that

We do not believe our restrictions will in any way detract from the enjoyment of the canyon by visitors not interested in vandalizing ruins. It [sic] will also serve to prevent misunderstandings with, and irritation of the Navajo Indians residing in the canyons. [17]

A report on illegal digging for archeological relics had been received from De Harport, and Guillet requested information on the problem from the canyon residents. He thought De Harport's allegations exaggerated, but conceded that there was some basis for concern. [18] In April Guillet and Cook had accompanied De Harport on tours of Canyon de Chelly and del Muerto as well as of the Hosbidibito outside the monument to investigate "possible violations of the Antiquities Act." The result of this inspection was an effort by the Bureau and the tribe to have a United States commissioner assigned to the reservation to try violations of Federal laws. [19] This effort was not successful, although Guillet supported the idea in various later reports. To further control travel within the canyons, daily patrols were instituted. [20]

The empty parking lot next to the site of the planned visitor center was apparently a natural place for the tourists to congregate. Guillet obtained a trailer, which he parked there as a contact station so that all visitors could be given orientation. [21]

All of these initial innovations showed early signs of success. New markers were needed to inform the visitors. The trailer station not only gave Archeologist Archer W. Stewart more space for his work, but met the need for better contact with visitors. The patrols did bring about a reduction in uncontrolled entry into the canyons. Guillet and Cook joined with Tribal Ranger Larry Benally in presenting a program to the local PTA explaining the new policies. It was so well received that they were asked to repeat the performance in the fall. [22]

Most dramatic of the changes was that made in personnel policies. Guillet made a real effort to hire Navajos not only in maintenance positions, but also as rangers. The first to enter on duty was Seasonal Ranger Jimmy Begaye on April 30. [23] In June he was able to add Shirley Sells and Leon Shirley to the seasonal staff of rangers and hire Helen Draper as seasonal clerk-typist. [24]

A new tribal program gave him further opportunity to expand Navajo representation: This was a student trainee program by which the tribe hired college students and assigned them to work in tribal and governmental agencies that requested them. [25] Through this program he hired Frank Pablo in accordance with a letter of agreement negotiated between the Park Service and the Tribal Division of Personnel on June 21. [26]

Guillet also initiated a thorough training program for all personnel, both white and Navajo, which gave special attention to Indian affairs. [27] With this increased staff, Guillet was able to offer additional interpretive services as visitation increased. On June 22 a ranger was stationed at White House to meet tourists who hiked to that point. At first this was done on an experimental basis, but was received so favorably that it became a regular feature whenever manpower was available and visitation warranted it. Seasonal personnel were also assigned to accompany parties on extended (apparently overnight) trips into the canyons. Regular programs were not neglected and campfire talks were given every evening. [28]

When Supervisory Park Ranger Roy Rainey resigned in July, Leon Shirley was assigned his duties in an acting capacity and performed very well. [29]

In August a new overlook was established on the south rim at White Sands by grading a new access road and parking area. [30]

The success of Guillet's efforts in hiring young Navajos in interpretive positions is best attested by Regional Archeologist Charlie Steen's observations resulting from a visit to the canyon in August:

The thing which impressed me most at the monument was the 100% Navajo seasonal interpretive force. These young people, one woman and two men, are pleasant and personable and apparently are doing an outstanding job. They seem to typify the completely changed atmosphere at the monument. [31]

Archeologist Stewart had much to do, but one job required a considerable portion of his time, although travel restrictions limited what he could accomplish. [32] This involved assisting in the preparation of exhibits for the future visitor center. Early in the year Steen had gone to Boulder to select items from the Morris Collections at the University of Colorado Museum that would be included in these exhibits. In May, Joe Ben Wheat issued these—a dozen artifacts, including perishable specimens of wood and fiber as well as pottery, stone, and shell specimens—on indefinite loan to the monument, shipping them to the Park Services's western museum laboratory in San Francisco, where the exhibits were being prepared. [33] Jenkins requested that the area send him up-to-date reference materials on the Navajos for use in exhibit preparation, [34] and so he was sent the last issue of the Navajo Yearbook on loan. Guillet had requested further material from the tribe, but when it was not provided he judged the political scene at Window Rock was still too unsettled, and decided not to push the request. [35]

Stewart's duties in this regard were next devoted to a search for the photographs needed by the museum laboratory. [36] In this he had some success, but by October the work had lagged so that Supervisory Ranger Franklin Wallace, who had replaced Rainey, was given a week free of all other duties in order to acquire the remainder. [37] The laboratory was having difficulties with the Anasazi exhibits and various changes were suggested. [38] While on annual leave Stewart visited the laboratory and discovered that changes had been made in exhibits and texts without informing the area staff, and so he obtained copies for Guillet. [39]

Additional work to expand the interpretive program was apparently being accomplished in the regional office where, it was reported, an area history handbook was to be "reworked." The monument lacked any copy of this manuscript or knowledge of it, but suggested that a manuscript entitled "Anasazi, Din'ne, Bellicanah," by Wesley Hurt, Jr., and James Spuhler, might serve the purpose if properly edited. [40] Little seems to have come of this project at this time, however.

A completely new element in visitor handling resulted from building the Tsaile Dam on the headwaters of Canyon del Muerto. Guillet reported briefly on the matter in June:

The new Tsailie Dam on Tsailie Creek above Canyon del Muerto is progressing rapidly and has started backing up water. This dam is for Recreation purposes primarily, but should serve also to control flood waters in Canyon del Muerto. It will undoubtedly accellerate [sic] road construction from the lake to Chinle and will probably follow the present location of the North Rim Road near Canyon del Muerto. This will hasten the need for a bridge over the canyon near our new Visitor Center. [41]

The dam was completed about July 1. A large part of the lake was within the monument boundary, but its construction was done by the Bureau and the tribe, the Park Service having no jurisdiction over any aspect of the lake. The lake was well stocked with trout and the tribe was publicizing it in an effort to develop the area for tourists. [42] Guillet reported increased use of the rim areas of the upper portions of the canyons by July because of the lakes, implying that Wheatfields Lake, outside the monument boundaries, was also a factor. [43] Early in August a complaint was received from Navajo farmers in "the canyon" that "large cottonwoods were drawing moisture from their farm lands," and thinning was recommended to reduce the ground moisture loss. [44] The report does not specify which canyon was involved, but it seems a reasonable assumption that if it were del Muerto the major cause might well have been the interference with the normal flow of water by the new dam rather than transpiration by the trees, although reduction of the canyon vegetation probably alleviated the situation somewhat.

By August the monument staff was giving serious thought to the problems posed by the growing visitation at the upper ends of the canyons. It was concluded that rangers would be required at Tsaile Lake and upper Canyon de Chelly in 1964, and two trailers were requested to make this feasible. While ultimate establishment of districts within the monument was contemplated in the master plan, events were moving too rapidly to permit a delay. [45] Shortly after this an inspection report by Charlie Steen supported the recommendation:

The tribe has practically surrounded the monument with a Recreational Area and one feature of this is a dam on Tsali [sic] Creek which will create a lake large enough for boating and fishing. The dam is within the monument boundaries and only a few miles above Mummy Cave. We will soon need both interpretive and protective personnel on the Canyon del Muerto arm of the Monument. [46]

In September the monument still reported that the Park Service was not involved in any aspect of the activities at Tsaile Lake. [47] Just after the end of the year Guillet's summary of the matter as it then stood appeared in an "Annual Fishery Resources Report-1963":

This dam was constructed, legally, within the boundary of Canyon de Chelly National Monument by the Bureau of Indian Affairs under an APW program and the Navajo Tribe. Upon its completion all jurisdiction as to use of the water, etc. was assumed by the Tribe. This service has no jurisdiction in any respect as it pertains to this lake. However, since this development greatly effects [sic] our own planning etc. we are submitting the narrative portion of the above subject report.

.   .   .    .   .

Since the Service has no jurisdiction we take no part in enforcement of fishing regulations which are a combination of State and Tribe in nature.

.   .   .    .   .

Since we are not, and prefer it so, consulted or often even informed of activities as to fishing within the area's boundary this report is for information purposes.

In summary we:

1. Have recreational fishing within the area,

2. Have nothing to do with its management

3. For now prefer it that way. [48]

The growth of the Chinle community was also a subject of concern, although it was not yet an immediate problem. In June Guillet mentioned in connection with "Tribal relations" that

Committees for the Overall Economic Development Program have been established and are busily engaged in establishing zoning and other regulations, Federal Housing Developments and other necessary steps to make the investment of outside capital attractive. Chinle has been chosen for a pilot area in Urban Development. Assistant Superintendent Cook is a member of the local committee. [49]

Enthusiasm at Window Rock and locally at least among whites apparently ran high, for Steen, in his investigation report in August, said that a new town, "Chinle City:" was being developed, which would include "a large tourist center." [50] Cook's duties in this regard seem to have brought him more in contact with Bureau personnel, such as Chinle Subagency Superintendent Krause, and potential investors, including Del Webb Enterprises, which was contemplating building a "super deluxe motel," than with local Navajos. [51] It was reported that Sam Day III had "purchased" the surface use of 6-1/2 acres of the grazing allotment of Anson Bahe Benally (Anson Bahe) for the site of a service station, [52] but in general local Navajo involvement in these plans seems to have been minimal.

Guillet waited until May 6 to write Nakai and attempt to establish a working relationship with the new tribal administration, explaining that he realized that he (Nakai) had been busy with his new responsibilities, and asking for an appointment with him. [53] The meeting was delayed, but the Navajo Tribal Parks Commission, under Chairman Sam Day III, visited the park and was given a tour of the canyons and of Navajo National Monument by Guillet and Cook, and Park Service programs and policies were explained. Guillet believed that this resulted in "a definite change in their general attitude toward the National Park Service." [54]

Guillet also worked with Day on plans for the development of the Manuelito area as a park under the tribe's supervision. [55] It was not until October 8 that Guillet was actually able to meet with the chairman himself, and the meeting served to accomplish little more than allowing the two men to become acquainted. Political turmoil within the tribe reached a peak when Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall suspended the tribal attorney Norman Littell, and the Bureau seized some tribal records in the same month. [56] This was followed by a court injunction obtained by Littell, and Nakai's issuing of a "white paper" to explain his actions against the attorney. Despite the furor, Guillet was able to arrange for a meeting, tentatively scheduled for the following year, which would bring together the Service, Bureau, and tribal officials. [57]

In the meantime many more routine affairs needed and received attention. When Chauncey Neboyia applied for permission to dig a well on his farm in the canyon, Guillet wrote the tribal water development office that

Section "2" of the act establishing Canyon de Chelly National Monument states that these rights are reserved for the Navajo Tribe, and no special use permit will be needed from the National Park Service unless the well encroaches on an Archeological site or other object of Historical or Scientific interest. Since this well does not encroach on any of the above, we recommend that your office issue Mr. Neboyia a permit. [58]

Regulation of the concession operation at the Thunderbird Ranch continued under split jurisdiction. In April Marlow Glenn, regional chief of concessions management, conducted an inspection of the establishment with Guillet. He reported, erroneously, that prices at the trading post were regulated by the tribe, apparently due to confusion regarding tribal and Bureau roles. His primary concern was the inspection of a new 12-unit motel site. He found some discrepancies between prices charged and the approved schedule for the tourist services, for which he initiated corrective measures. Otherwise he was well satisfied with what he found and believed the La Fonts to be "eager to acquaint themselves with the Service's policies and abide thereby." [59] The amendments to the rate schedule were approved without difficulty, construction of the new motel proceded rapidly, and business was booming. [60] Cook's annual fire hazard inspection found that the former poor practices at the concession buildings had been largely corrected, and he complimented the La Fonts on their improvements. [61]

Thunderbird Ranch was getting its water from the Bureau, and with meters recently installed, would be charged for full use, which was estimated to run about 2,050,000 gallons once the new motel was in operation. La Font began to consider drilling his own well, but Guillet believed that when he figured the costs he would not do so. [62] La Font did go ahead with his plan and submitted a request for permission to put in his own water system. Guillet phoned the regional office to inquire about it on September 8. He received a reply shortly that the proposal was not approved. Besides stating that they considered the existing rates reasonable and the supply ample, the region made three other points: (1) La Font would still have to pay for sewage disposal, which was a part of the charge for water; (2) his well would be the property of the Federal Government; and (3) the tendency of such a project to give a concessioner a proprietary interest made strong justification necessary before approval would be given. [63]

The tourist season was not far advanced when a complaint was lodged against La Font's operation pertaining to the hours that the dining facilities were open, the prices charged for "junk" curios, and the cost of tours up the canyon bottoms. [64] The regional director suggested that a graduated rate scale based on the number of passengers for the jeep tours might help avoid repetitions of the complaint regarding canyon trips. [65] Cook found this suggestion reasonable and defended Thunderbird policies in the other matters. He concluded by stating that the concessioner was not without faults, but that the complaints in question were unjustified. [66]

The new motel was completed in July and the Thunderbird enjoyed a profitable year. [67] Offsetting the one formal complaint were the lithographs sent as tokens of thanks to both the concessioners and the National Park Service by a visiting artist, who had found everything he encountered at the monument especially good. [68]

Maintenance and construction activities continued, although it was difficult to keep up with the work load imposed by the heavy visitation. Cleaning of the campground was especially burdensome, and the repairing of wear and tear on easel exhibits at the overlooks had to be postponed until after travel slackened. [69] Gorman was in charge of the maintenance program and his work was highly praised, the difficulties encountered being duly recognized. [70]

Work on trails received special attention, which was gratifying to both Navajo residents and tourists. White House Trail was rehabilitated and work was also begun on Twin Trails. [71]

The major project initiated was the construction of the visitor center and another residence. An advertisement for bids was released June 3. [72] No bids were received, however, and it was decided to remove the restriction limiting bidders to "small businesses" in hopes that a large contractor then doing work at Chinle would submit a bid. [73]

The completion of Navajo Route 1, The Navajo Trail, and the opening of an all-weather road to the north, plus tribal plans in the tourist industry, caused concern on Guillet's part because of the effect the delays and the cancellation of all construction for Fiscal Year 1965 might have on tribal relations. He wrote

If our development to date and administration of this area had been such that the Navajo Tribe could have pointed to it with pride rather than viewing it with alarm, our position would be better in other areas of negotiation.

I feel that it is of extreme importance that we keep pace and even surpass other developments if we are to try to improve our relations and gain prestige for our Service. We now have the greatest opportunity yet presented to show the Tribe the economic benefits of a National Park area to their overall development. We will be "on the spot" so to speak and we had better make the best of it. If we fall down here, we will find ourselves in no position to gain any future concessions from the tribe. [74]

The rapidly increasing visitation and slow progress brought strong criticism from Guillet, who wrote early in October:

This visitor center being 1963 F. [iscal] Y. [year] should have been constructed and occupied in 1963—actually much sooner, since the road pattern was developed to the site and has had a visitor flow to a vacant lot for over three years. [75]

The contract was awarded that month to the Flaugh-Slavens Company of Cortez, Colorado, not to the large contractor originally contemplated, and ground was finally broken on October 22. [76] Good weather continued into November and the work proceeded well. [77]

The soil and moisture program was also continued in the spring with the planting of 5,000 additional cuttings and the trimming of trees, whose brush was piled on new spider jetties. [78] The work continued to be done under the old agreement with the Bureau. [79] Other accomplishments under this program were the building of an erosion control dam at the head of Twin Trails and of 147 jetties protecting about 900 feet of stream bank. [80]

Protection became most urgent in the late afternoon of June 17 when the Navajo tribal forester in Window Rock called in to report a fire in the canyon. Guillet and Cook scouted the area and found the fire at Mule Trail. An initial force of five men, including Cook as fire boss, traveled up the canyon floor 14 miles and then hiked 3 miles to reach the blaze, which was so large that they sent for help. Dan Carroll brought equipment in by packhorse the next morning and was immediately added to the crew, although the fire had been brought under some control during the night. The reinforcements led by Ranger Rainey did not arrive until mid-morning, but the combined crews were able to control the fire by noon. The Bureau was not represented until a half hour later when William Ashley showed up with food for a 20-man, mop-up crew. The crew never did appear but the Park Service crews enjoyed a meal at Bureau expense. The men continued work until 6:00 P.M., June 20, when the fire was fully extinguished. As a result of this experience the area personnel thought that the agreement with the Bureau for fighting fires should be renegotiated. [81]

Wildlife control was performed by tribal employees. Two beavers doing extensive damage in the upper part of Canyon del Muerto were caught and transplanted to a remote mountain area. Bobcats bothering sheep in the same canyon also received tribal attention, but the trapper was unsuccessful. [82] An all-out effort by the Bureau, the Public Health Service, the tribe, and the public school district to round up stray dogs both inside and outside the monument received Park Service assistance, the dogs not faring as well as the bobcats. [83]

Pure research activity was limited to a visit by Roy L. Carison of the University of Colorado museum, who took photographs and made notes for use in the preparation of a report on Earl Morris's earlier work in the canyons. [84] Stabilization at Mummy Cave, however, begun on August 1 by Archeologists Richert and Voll, resulted not only in further repair and protection of the ruins, but in new archeological observations, including the finding of prayersticks in the tower. [85] Steen visited, the job and reported their work "first rate," but he believed that more extensive stabilization was required. [86] The work was finished on September 2. [87] Damage by livestock was reported by Richert and was again noted in November, indicating the need for a fence. [88]

A final note on the events of the year should be on the apparent ability of the new ranger, Franklin Wallace, to get along with the local Navajos. Without specifying what was involved, Guillet in November praised him for handling with firmness and tack "situations which could have become unpleasant." [89] Later duties did definitely involve the Navajos, however, when he assisted two members of the Navajo Tribal Police investigating the shooting of three cows in Canyon de Chelly. [90]

The next year, 1964, brought greater involvement by Guillet in Navajo relations at the tribal level, but continual dissension within the tribal council and between the Secretary of the Interior and the tribal attorney hindered real progress on any of the more controversial issues facing the Service. [91]

Guillet's duties brought him a wide variety of matters for consideration. Early in the year he was asked to review plans for exhibits for a visitor center museum at Wupatki, and found it necessary to recommend changes that would prevent the Park Service from being suspect as taking sides in the conflicting land claims of the Navajos and Hopis. [92]

By the end of January he had completed arrangements for the meeting with tribal officials to explain Park Service policies. His programming suggests the source of some problems in tribal relations:

It was our concensus of opinion that some of the Tribal officials might get a better understanding of our policies and objectives by letting them listen and perhaps change their thoughts on certain things before presenting their talks, particularly Chairman Nakai. For this reason we scheduled them during the afternoon session. [93]

No report on the outcome of this meeting has been located, but the results were probably limited if the degree of Navajo participation in the master planning field study conducted from March 9 to 20 is any indication. The only Navajo participant and only representative of the tribe to take a significant part was Sam Day III, chairman of the Navajo Tribal Parks Commission. Bureau representation was considerably better, four delegates being present. [94] Despite the failure of tribal representatives to take a greater part in the planning process, tribal interests were not slighted, Sanford Hill noting that:

The memorandum of November 27, 1963 from Regional Director Beard to the Director emphasized the importance of preparing a complete planning study for Canyon de Chelly in order to correlate Service activities with those of the Navajo Tribal Council. The importance of this relationship was discussed in considerable detail during all phases of the study, which included a special meeting with representatives from The Bureau of Indian Affairs and from The Navajo Tribal Council. Evidence of the close interrelationship appears throughout the package. It is our understanding that Mr. Beard expects to use the approved plan as the instrument for encouraging cooperation with the Tribal Council in the solution of any mutual problems. [95]

Beard's hopes were not without foundation. Guillet's concerns, however, were more immediate and he continued to advocate developing the monument along lines that would impress the Navajos with what the National Park Service could do and the benefits of having the area under its administration. He also believed that the tribal park system was providing a good channel for communication at the tribal level through the National Park System's role as advisor, a role that he felt would become more important as time passed.

Implementation of Guillet's ideas was hindered by financial constraints. The most urgent need, a bridge across the wash at the mouth of the canyon, had been postponed and only through personal contact with the director at a cocktail party at Grand Canyon was he able to expedite the project. There were several reasons why this bridge had high priority, according to Guillet.

Not only will it serve to better relations with the Tribe, but I believe that it may ultimately pay for itself in the portions of road along the North Rim that may be constructed by the BIA and the Navajo Tribe. The construction of this bridge would allow the closing of the Canyon del Muerto School as busses could then bring the students to Chinle. It would also possibly completely eliminate costly winding road construction necessary to stay within our boundaries. It might also eliminate right-of-way negotiations with the Tribe if roads might of necessity have to go outside Park boundaries.

Although unofficial, we have assurance that once the bridge was constructed, the BIA would see that at least the first nine miles of this road was built in order to save the cost of operating a separate school plant at Del Muerto [sic], and to provide all-weather school bus service to the Navajo children to Chinle. [96]

He gave further justification for the need to assign priorities to planned programs 2 days later:

With the development of Tsaile Lake Recreation Area at the head of Canyon del Muerto this previously relatively inaccessible area now presents an additional protection problem. This fiscal year (1964) it will be necessary to place a house trailer and Seasonal Ranger there. Without the bridge and when the wash is running, the 'attack' time is more than doubled from headquarters in the event of any emergency situation. Last, but no means least, is the public-Navajo relations aspect. This should perhaps rate first in our justification criteria. Prior to, and ever since the establishment of this area as a National Monument, the Service has been obligated to construct this bridge. This project was promised as early as 1931. Inasmuch as our actions here at Canyon de Chelly reflect the image of the Service throughout the Navajo Reservation and will have far reaching affects in our dealings elsewhere with them, this bridge assumes great importance. [97]

While these last arguments were quite reasonable, they imply events that it should be noted did not necessarily happen. The stationing of a ranger at Tsaile Lake had to be postponed another year, probably due to lack of adequate staffing. The promise to build the bridge at the time of the establishment of the monument is a more uncertain matter. Nothing to this effect appears in the contemporary documentation of the 1920s and 1930s, but the full extent of verbal commitments made by various Park Service and Bureau officials at that time is far from clear in the records of the period. It is most probable that Guillet received his information in this regard from local Navajos. While a commitment to build a bridge at that time seems rather improbable, it may well have been made, and the reliability of Guillet's source must be left to his judgement in the absence of more detailed data.

Guillet participated in the regional director's staff review of the proposed master plan; revisions suggested were relatively minor, although some are significant in terms of the light they shed on local and tribal Navajo relations and may reasonably be assigned to Guillet's influence. A proposal that two campgrounds be established within the canyons for horseback visitors was deleted, allowing the superintendent administrative leeway to designate locations for such use as might be dictated by events within the area. A proposed exclusion of the concession from the monument area by boundary change was toned down. It was pointed out that the plan would have to be "thoroughly discussed with the Navajos" after approval in Washington and that this might impose further changes. [98]

Guillet remained wary of trying to accomplish too much too fast with the tribal administration at that time, hoping to build up good relations locally that would later have an effect on tribal policy. As he explained his view of the matter:

The failure of the National Park Service to adhere to assurances and commitments made to the Navajo Tribe before their consent was given for the establishment of this National Monument, has given self-seeking Navajo Politicians ample material and some justification for their attempt to return Canyon de Chelly to the Tribe. We are at present making what I believe is good headway in winning back the confidence of the local Navajos and re-establishing more friendly relations. Present overall economic development plans of the Tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are working to our advantage in pointing out the value of a National rather than Tribal Park area to the local economy. The Federal Government footing the bill rather than the Tribe also has certain attraction. [99]

Tribal desires to construct a large motel within or adjacent to the monument made it necessary to work as closely as possible with tribal officials, however. [100] Approval of the master plan was received in due time and it then had to be presented to the tribe. [101] Continued cooperation with the Tribal Parks Commission on planning developments at Lake Powell provided one avenue of approach, particularly in view of the involvement of Vice-Chairman Nelson Damon, but continued political factionalism at Window Rock and the organization of responsibilities within the tribal offices led to a somewhat different approach. [102] A review of the master plan with tribal representatives was finally held on October 6 at Window Rock. Guillet was joined at the meeting by Park Planner David Jones, Assistant Superintendent John Cook, and Regional Chief of Master Plan Coordination Volney J. Westley. Attending on behalf of the tribe were Ned Hatathli, director of the Resources Division, and certain members of his staff—Edward O. Plummer of the Land Investigations Department, Willard Fraser of Agriculture and Livestock, Woody Isaac of Tribal Parks, and Freeman E. Taber, who was then on detached assignment to the tribe from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

After briefing the tribal officials on the plan, giving emphasis to the problems involved in protection and interpretation of the ruins, settlement of land use conflicts, and improvement of Navajo-tourist relations, a discussion followed, which Westley reported upon in some detail:

Questions asked by Messrs. Hatathli and Plummer are listed below with our replies shown in parentheses.

1) What are the specific objectives and guidelines in this plan that represent change in policy compared to previous plans? (Employment of Navajos and training them for higher level positions on the staff; closer cooperation between [sic] NPS to solve problems and achieve mutually desirable objectives in the monument; recognition that Canyon de Chelly is a historic site to Anglos, but a historic shrine to Navajos).

2) Do these policy changes apply only to Canyon de Chelly or will they apply to other NPS areas in the vicinity of the Navajo Reservation? (General policy will apply to other NPS areas).

3) Does the NPS intend to restrict the activities and mode of life of Navajos resident in the canyons? (NPS has no authority over Navajos resident in [the] canyons and their way of life, except with respect to protection of sites and furnishing of services to visitors. Tribe and NPS must face the problem and act together).

4) Is the NPS or the tribe in charge of the concession operation at Thunderbird Lodge? (NPS had administrative control over the concession operation. However, the tribe receives the franchise fees from its operation).

5) Will the NPS object to a tribal concession operation in the monument, such as at a rim overlook? (The NPS will not object to tribal concession operation on the rim but the Service must approve the location, size and type, and exercise administrative control over the concessioner).

The specific problem of controlling unauthorized access into the canyons from the Chuska Parkway was recognized and discussed, especially from Tsaile and Wheatfields Reservoirs. Mr. Hatathli believes that some arrangement can be made so that Tribal rangers can accomplish this for us. Mr. Taber . . . suggested it might be better for the NPS to construct and man these district stations and train Navajos to do the job. No specific conclusions were reached, and this is typical of the problems that will require joint study and action. Mr. Hatathli stated that a new head of the tribal parks department will be employed shortly and that this will be part of his job.

This is the best meeting with the Navajos I have attended. It was a businesslike one, perceptive questions were asked, and no conflict in attitudes was evident. Mr. Hatathli complimented the Service on the scope and quality of the plan and the imagination it reflects. . . . It was evident at this meeting that Superintendent Guillet is doing an excellent job, but that he needs to be kept better informed by other area superintendents of Navajo matters. The recent shooting of a horse at Chaco Canyon was criticized, a matter that Mr. Guillet learned of indirectly. [103]

Westley had little knowledge of tribal politics and probably failed to realize what Guillet doubtless understood all too well. At the meeting they were dealing with young, well-educated, and accomplishment-oriented Navajo administrators, who were holdovers from the previous administration. While their influence with the new chairman was limited, they could give the kind of tribal recognition and approval to the master plan that Washington required and that would improve tribal relations in many respects. On the other hand, future developments were largely beyond their control. Guillet, did, however, send copies of the master plan to Hatathli asking that he give it his endorsement. [104] Action on this was delayed at Window Rock and it is not certain whether Hatathli ever gave formal approval. [105] Guillet had occasion to restate his assessment of tribal affairs not long after and expressed his views of the best policy to pursue as follows:

The . . . "upset" election of Raymond Nakai as Chairman of The Tribal Council in March resulted in turmoil and dissension among Tribal leaders and the legal battle between Secretary Udall and Tribal Attorney Norman Littell has created a more difficult and challenging aspect to this assignment. It has been my policy and recommendation to proceed quietly with the winning of the confidence and respect of the Navajo People without great fanfare, striving to attain their support in matters of benefit to both the Service and the Tribe. It is my firm belief that we should keep any National Park Service proposals or matters that might prove controversial until such time as the Tribal political climate is more propitious for successful negotiations. [106]

In a broad-ranging memorandum on Indian policy written earlier in the year, Guillet had set forth his more general policies, which help place his recommendations in better perspective:

Each tribe or cultural group has its own distinct way of life including a code of behavior or ethics, if you will. An appreciation of these and an attitude of friendliness and respect as well as personal efforts to try and [sic] understand their way of thinking and use of logic will go a long way. Only personnel who have tolerance and a genuine liking and understanding of primitive peoples should be chosen to deal with them, or administer the areas in which they have retained rights.

He listed some specific policies that required special attention in Navajo relations and that he thought should apply when dealing with any tribal group:

1. That there be full documentation of, and strict adherance to all assurances, commitments, or agreements given to, or entered into with the Navajo Tribe.

2. That interpretive programs, facilities and other developments be made with the interest of local inhabitants as well as visitors in mind. That whenever possible, force account projects be utilized to provide work and training for the Navajo People. . . .

3. That care we [sic] exercised in choosing supervisory and management personnel to administer the area. Only those with proven experience in dealing successfully with primitive or unacculturated people or possessing those characteristics which indicate tolerance and understanding should be chosen.

4. That liaison be maintained by the Regional as well as area officers with leaders of the Tribe so that difficult situations arising can be settled before they assume dangerous proportions.

One remark on conditions then current is also pertinent here:

It is my opinion that we are beginning to sell the National Park Service ideas and principles to the Navajo people and are gaining ground rapidly through assistance to, and cooperation with the Tribe and other agencies concerned with Navajo Affairs. The Navajo are an unpredictable people but if we regain and retain their liking and respect of our integrity, I do not believe that they would propose other than one change. . . . [107]

It is in relation to these ideals and policies that Guillet's,specific actions and decisions can best be comprehended and evaluated. In most matters his primary focus was upon local effects or upon gaining rapport at a "grass-roots" level throughout the tribe and avoiding involvement in the political conflicts at Window Rock, while carrying out official liaison with tribal officials. While relations on the tribal level may have been uncertain as a result of internal political factors, he was able to accomplish a good deal in programs limited to dealings within tribal administrative subdivisions. A more or less chronological narrative of events during 1964 will illustrate the day-to-day applications of his philosophy.

When a new radio system was to be installed for the area he was able to persuade the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority to submit a proposal for building a power extension to a repeater station and providing the power. [108] The Park Service did award the contract to the NTUA, which performed the work using an approach road bladed out by Maintenance Foreman David Gorman. [109] By August the new FM system was in use and was considered a success. [110]

While cooperation with the Bureau, a sister agency under the Department of Interior, was at least in theory more routine though not necessarily conducive to better relations with the Navajos, some joint programs seem to have had full local support and suffered criticism only when too little was done. A joint undertaking of this sort was the soil and moisture program. Erosion and flooding within the canyons were serious problems for the Navajo farmers and their interest in works to alleviate these threats ran high. Plantings used to stabilize stream banks during April and May consisted of 16,300 Russian olive, golden leaf willow, and cottonwood seedlings. An 80 percent survival rate was reported for these. [111] In July applications were processed for the building of more spider jetties in Canyon del Muerto, but these may not have been built until much later due to the heavy runoff during succeeding months that hampered travel within the canyons. [112]

Insect infestations, which attacked both the protective plantings and Navajo crops, were also handled under this program. The Bureau began spraying early in the spring or summer because of a particularly bad onslaught that year. [113] On June 23-25 Regional Forester Melie H. Lampi inspected the area. He found extreme defoliation of cottonwoods and willows, especially in the vicinity of Antelope House where about 60 percent of the trees had been killed. He reported that the tribe had sprayed in this last area with a mixture of five insecticides, so that "there was not a living critter in that section of the grove!" The villain in the story was identified as the cottonwood leaf beetle, Lina scripta Fabr. Lampi found natural predators of the organism present in the canyons and felt that the serious damage was over for the season. However, he recommended that Guillet be prepared to control any future outbreaks by using spraying procedures approved by the Federal Pest Control Review Board. [114] The acting regional director relayed Lampi's recommendations to Guillet and advised a judicious attempt to encourage tribal observance of the rules governing the use of pesticides. [115] Guillet submitted the necessary request for clearance to spray when needed. His proposal contained much specific information on the nature of the problem and the necessary involvement of the Navajos on various levels:

For hundreds of years many Navajo people have made Canyon de Chelly their home. They have cared for and enlarged orchards which date to near Southwest pre-history. They also plant and harvest annual crops of corn, squash, etc. The same insects which are destroying the Cottonwood and Willow Trees can and are destroying the orchards and farm crops.

If we stand idly by while the insects destroy the trees our not too shiny image tarnishes that much more. However, worst of all, should the Navajo people succeed in talking their appropriate Government branch into taking action we have placed ourselves in a position of double jeopardy. They have every right to spray within the Canyons and are not subjected to pesticide controls, thus paving the way for dual criticism of the National Park Service.

He obviously felt that in order to maintain the proper controls over pesticide use, it was preferable that the Park Service initiate action and work within the regulations rather than allow the Bureau or the Navajos to do the work and use methods that perhaps would be ecologically detrimental. He was careful not to suggest that the Service take over unilaterally, however, and listed the procedures needed to accomplish his aims in a cooperative manner that did not exclude other interested parties. He first described the probable role of the Bureau in any spraying that the Park Service might do:

The branch of Land Operations of the Bureau of Indian Affairs which assists in the administration and management of Tribal Lands is automatically involved here. They will assist in logistical support and probably provide the special vehicles needed to transport the mist blower up the Canyons.

With regard to both the tribe and the chapter he stated:

The local chapter and appropriate branch of the Navajo Tribal Government will be advised and invited to participate. It is doubtful if they will go beyond the observing point and this is what we prefer for this project.

In contrast, he expected and hoped for a close working relationship with the Navajo farmers:

The individual Navajos who's [sic] land will be affected will be automatically and obviously involved. To encourage full cooperation these individuals will be fully informed, briefed on and to the extent possible hired to perform this project.

He ended with a warning that failure to take action in an emergency of this sort would be detrimental to local public relations. [116] The threat of the leaf beetle seems to have diminished on its own, but the administrative groundwork had been laid and procedures planned in the event it should return in the near future.

The cooperation of the Bureau and Park Service in the soil and moisture program was not only conducive to better public relations, but resulted in savings in money and manpower. Similarly, cooperation with the tribal police and park rangers resulted in more law enforcement at the monument and allowed the hiring of one less seasonal ranger. [117] Because the Navajos who resided in the canyons were subject to tribal law, much of the law enforcement was, of course, a matter of internal tribal concern and of little relevance to the Park Service. The administration of this aspect of law enforcement would have brought the Park Service into areas that were not really of any concern to it and that it was ill-prepared to handle. Monument personnel did have primary responsibility for controlling visitors, however, and undertook to meet this responsibility. Whenever weather conditions permitted, daily patrols were made of the canyons, and unauthorized visitors lacking permits or guides were escorted from the canyons regularly. [118]

The most effective cooperation with tribal police was displayed when more serious problems arose. On the 4th of July, a busload of tourists stranded at Three Turkey House, outside the monument, were rescued by Chief Ranger Wallace. When a visitor's car rolled over the edge of the cliff at the White House Overlook, Wallace and tribal police attended to the matter together. One of the major disasters of Chinle history occurred in July. A flood in the Nazlini Wash destroyed the bridge connecting Chinle with the Ganado highway, leaving the dirt roads over the Defiance Plateau as the only access to or from the monument. One car with seven Navajo occupants was lost. National Park rangers assisted in the emergency along with tribal police and Bureau personnel, taking part in search and rescue and traffic control, helping find the bodies of those killed, preventing further loss, and guiding the stranded tourists to Sawmill over the back roads. Park Service maintenance workers and heavy equipment assisted in the building of a temporary crossing of the wash as soon as the flood waters subsided. [119] Subsequent floods in the same wash took out the temporary crossing twice in August, resulting in two more caravans of stranded tourists being escorted to Sawmill. [120]

Vandalism by local teenagers in the headquarters area was investigated in September. [121] Wallace and the Navajo police worked together on the case and it was learned that, at least in one instance, the culprit was the son of a Government building inspector at Many Farms, where a school was under construction. The father promised to discipline his boy and no charges were filed. [122]

In a general report on Navajo affairs submitted in November Guillet was able to note additional areas of cooperation with the Navajo parks, including assistance in protecting land adjacent to Park Service holdings, offering training for tribal rangers at the Horace Albright Training Center, and participation by Park Service personnel in tribal ranger training sessions. [123] On the last day of the month a small fire outside the monument near Spider Rock was extinguished by Park Service workers before it could spread. [124] In December a second vehicle rolled over a cliff, this time at the sand dunes outside the monument boundary, and the Park Service participated in the accident investigation. [125]

The effect of Park Service programs on local affairs remained major concern. In April the principal of the Del Muerto School wrote requesting Service assistance in keeping the road open across the Canyon de Chelly Wash. Guillet noted that

no one is more appreciative of the problem than we are as we have pulled 117 cars out during the last month at all times of day and night. However, the real spring runoff has not yet begun. . . . Any lasting work will have to be accomplished when the wash is not running. . . .

As soon as the new Tsaile Lake and Wheatfields Lake reach their required storage capacity, in the next week or two, all of the normal runoff will be released and the wash will be running bank to bank covering or taking out any stopgap measures we might make now.

The National Park Service has tentatively scheduled the construction of a bridge for 1966, but of course this depends upon whether Congress gives us the money. When this bridge is constructed, the need for the Del Muerto School will no longer exist as school busses could then bring the children to Chinle.

As to the present situation, we are willing to assist other agencies with our equipment, but just do not have any roads and trails funds for the buying of materials or hiring of men. [126]

While fighting to retain approval of the bridge project, Guillet found that the only way to save the Park Service's reputation in local eyes was to rescue all vehicles stuck at the crossing. When pleading his cause for early construction of the bridge, he sent pictures of a stuck tribal vehicle. [127] The extraordinary number of stranded vehicles imposed a real burden on the staff, and Guillet found it necessary to issue guidelines in hopes of avoiding any tort claims: (1) no assistance was to be given to intoxicated drivers; (2) Government equipment was not to be used outside of the monument boundaries except with special approval of the superintendent; (3) in cases where the Park Service had no "moral obligation," assistance would be obtained from a Chinle garage; (4) a form releasing the Government from any claim due to damage or injury should be signed by the owner of any vehicle towed by a Government vehicle; (5) regular procedures might be by-passed in cases where failure to render assistance might endanger "life or limb"; (6) no payment or tip could be accepted for assistance given with Government equipment; (7) tribal police and rangers should be given all assistance needed when their duties required them to enter the canyons; and (8) aid to Navajo residents in cases of sickness and distress imposed moral obligations under which certain regulations could be ignored. [128] Assistance to Navajos in such emergencies was considered routine, [129] and the rescue of vehicles stuck in quicksand and dry sand was a regular duty. [130] In October it was possible to rebuild the crossing near the visitor center by using culverts and constructing protective jetties. [131]

Personal relations with local Navajos resulted in assistance that, at times, was far from emergency in nature but that was necessary for good rapport with monument residents, many of whom were people with a strong traditional orientation and little understanding of the difference between "official" and private acts. Guillet's description late in the year illustrates the wide range of situations encountered:

The staff at this area and I am sure that at Navajo National Monument and Chaco Canyon there are almost daily contacts with members of the Navajo Tribe. Contacts much like the following:

Here we assist them in a great many ways. From the neighborly act of feeding Grandma Benally's goat and chickens when she is away, helping sick people get care at the PHS Clinic, to rescuing goats and sheep that have become 'rim rocked' in the canyon. Instances of this type are too numerous to mention but they are aimed at establishing good 'grass roots' relationships with the individual Navajos who make up the community and establish a better understanding of the policies and aims of the National Park Service. [132]

While most such services were not detailed in the monthly reports, an occasional more dramatic episode might be briefly mentioned, as when the chief ranger "beat the stork by only minutes" in November. [133] More emphasis was given to these incidents late in the year, and in December the successful treatment of a presumably dead Navajo girl with artificial respiration, an unsuccessful attempt to bring a sick woman over a steep ice-covered trail, and the rescue of eight goats from a ledge were noted. [134]

An annual event that was carried out at the tribal level, but that was aimed at personal contact with individual Navajos as much as at the promotion of relations with tribal officialdom, was the Park Service exhibit at the tribal fair each fall in Window Rock. A new slide presentation was prepared for this in 1964 with a taped talk in both Navajo and English. [135] The Navajo text was translated by Clarence Gorman with assistance from some of his family and required a great deal of work, but was exceptionally effective. The slide show was given in the library of the tribal museum, there being 40 presentations a day and very good attendance. Many in the audiences sat through more than one showing and members of the tribal council were especially interested. Postcards and souvenirs were passed out, with each one given to a Navajo having an olivella shell, used in certain Navajo ceremonies, stapled to it. Particular emphasis was given to stating the value of National Park Service programs to the reservation economy, especially in regard to the jobs they provided for Navajos. [136]

The employment of Navajos had been one of Guillet's major concerns and the impression that this aspect of his program made at the tribal fair was undoubtedly very encouraging. That summer he had 18 Navajos on the payroll at de Chelly. While there was still only one permanent position filled by a Navajo, it was as head maintenance man. In August the range of titles was indicative of the varied roles Navajos were now able to fill, including Park Ranger (General), Park Ranger (Archeologist), Clerk-Typist, and Operator General and Laborer. [137] Later the position of Truck Driver was added to the list. [138]

Contribution to the local economy was not restricted to employment. Guillet found that he could contract some work to Navajos also. Damage to ruins by livestock had long been a problem, resulting in fencing work by the Ruins Stabilization Unit and regular maintenance crews, but the fencing of Big Cave Ruin was done under contract by Johnson Hunter and Thomas Bia in November. [139]

Earlier in the year Robert Draper, a young Navajo artist, was commissioned to do a series of drawings for use in metal photo exhibits. These were obtained through a purchase order, [140] and thus technically were not obtained by letting a contract, but the procedure may well have led to the later innovation.

Another project that would involve Navajos was planned for the spring. This was to be a study of Navajo history and culture. The historical research was to be done by Robert Utley and Albert H. Schroeder of the regional office, but Sallie Van Valkenburgh was to begin in August on a study of the legends, place-names, and traditional history of the canyons. [141] For unexplained reasons she did not arrive until October 5, when, evidently accepted by the Navajos, she immediately began work. [142] She taped her interviews, working in the main canyon with Clarence Gorman as her assistant. [143] It was, perhaps, the ideal time of the year, because many of the mythological episodes that she wanted may not properly be told in the summer. Guillet's hope of organizing an interpretive program that gave adequate recognition to the Navajos seemed well under way. Van Valkenburgh completed the first phase of her project in November, having collected several tapes, translations, and photographs. She was to return in the spring to continue the work. [144]

The four-way relationship between the Service, the concessioner, the tribe, and the Bureau continued to produce complex problems. These became so bothersome that in the new master plan it was even proposed that the monument boundary be adjusted to exclude the Thunderbird Ranch from the area. [145] Guillet believed that his efforts had had such success that this was the only change the tribe would propose for Canyon de Chelly at this time. He felt that all concession fees should properly go to the tribe, and perhaps thought that this action would settle any question in the matter and perhaps end the controversy over whether the tribe had the right to construct its own motel at the canyon mouth. [146] La Font feared this competition, and a field solicitor's opinion was requested. [147]

The water supply for the Thunderbird was still in question. La Font had not given up his desire to have his own well, and Guillet had had second thoughts in this regard, fearing that the heavy demand at Thunderbird during the peak travel season would leave the monument without adequate pressure for fire fighting. [148] A visit by Marlow Glenn, regional chief of concessions management, resulted in a discussion that seemed to convince La Font that he would not be able to effect any savings by having his own well.

Glenn's inspection covered many problems such as the use of approved prices, fire safety, and the like, but his report was primarily concerned with the quality of the Thunderbird's bookkeeping. An audit had noted many "deviations from normal bookkeeping practices." The heart of the matter appeared to be the low price paid the accounting firm in Gallup that kept La Font's books. Glenn was able to convince both the head of the firm and La Font that increased service for increased pay was expected. [149]

A detailed inspection of the concession buildings for fire hazards was made by Chief Ranger Wallace in June. He found many deficiences in wiring, fire extinguishers, and employee training. Indicative of the status of Park Service-concessioner relations at that time was his concluding complaint that he was unable to make as detailed an inspection as he wanted because of the concessioner's lack of cooperation. [150]

In July a solicitor's opinion was rendered on two questions that had been raised regarding the concession and the tribe. These merit quotation in some detail.

The first question was whether the Service had any authority over the proposed tribal motel if built within monument boundaries. The answer was as follows:

As to the first issue presented it is our view that unless and until the National Park Service specifically authorizes the establishment of motel service within the monument boundaries no one is authorized to establish and operate such a service. . . .

The act of February 14, 1931, 46 Stat. 1161, as amended, 16 USC S455, established the monument and governs the rights of the Service and the Tribe. Section 2 declares that nothing contained in the act is to be construed to impair the Tribe's right, title and interest ". . . to all lands and minerals, including oil and gas and the surface use of such lands for agriculture, grazing and other purposes except as hereinafter defined. . . ." Section 3 then provides: . . . That the National Park Service, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, is hereby charged with the administration of the area of said National Monument . . . and also the right to provide facilities of any nature whatsoever required for the care and accommodation of visitors to the monument.

Consequently, until the Service exercizes [sic] its right, specifically with respect to motel operations within the monument, no motel could be established or operated by anyone including the Tribe. The terms of the concession contract seem to be in accord with this view.

The contract itself is silent as to the operation of motel service within the monument boundaries. Subsection 2(a) of the contract makes provision for the concessioner to furnish ". . . guest ranch accomodations [sic]." Subsection 2(c) declares that:

the tribe shall not establish, without prior approval of the Secretary, any guest ranch accomodations within five miles of the boundary of said monument, provided, however, that a motel and restaurant for services to transients shall not be considered as guest ranch accomodations.

The effect of these provisions is seemingly to protect the concessioner's guest ranch from competition by another guest ranch, established by the Tribe anywhere within five miles of the monument boundary. A motel could be constructed by the Tribe closer than five miles from the monument boundary; it could be constructed and operated next to the boundary. However, neither a motel nor a guest ranch could be constructed or operated by the Tribe within the monument if it is not authorized by the Service, in view of the delegation of authority to the Service under Section 3 of the 1931 act to make provision for visitor accomodations.

The second question, in view of a later reversal of policy (see Chapter 10) and its effects on tribal relations, is also significant. This concerned whether the Service had the right to reconsider the franchise fee at the end of the fifteenth year of the concession contract. The solicitor stated that:

it is our view that this question is governed by the contract provisions to which all of the parties have agreed. Section 9 of the contract deals entirely with the concession fee. Subsection 9(a) requires that the concessioner pay the fee to the Indian Tribe; a basis for determining the amount of the fee and a time of payment are also stated. Subsection 9(c) asserts that "within 60 days after the end of the 5th, 10th, and 15th years of the contract, either party hereto may request a reconsideration of the amount and character of the fee provision provided for in subsection (a) of this section." (underscoring added). The term "either party" as used in subsection 9(c) seems to mean one or the other of the two parties directly concerned with the franchise fee. If all three parties had been intended to be included the words "any party" would probably have been used. In addition, section 9 with its subsections should be read together and subsection 9(c) refers to subsection 9(a) which concerns only the concessioner and the Indian Tribe. Therefore, in our view only the Tribe or the concessioner could request a reconsideration of the amount and character of the concession fee at the end of the fifteenth year of December 31, 1968. [151]

The fee policy had broad implications, applying to other areas besides the concessions. In November Guillet, in recommending that no fees be collected for use of the campgrounds and picnic areas, stated:

Two immediate problems . . . arise:

One is the question of "Who would get the fee?" Since title to the land rests with the Navajo Tribe it is assumed that they would feel that any user fees collected would be rightfully theirs. Inasmuch as the concession franchise fee goes to the Tribe we assume other NPS collected fees would follow this pattern.

The other problem and the one to cause the are[a] the most headache is "Who to charge?" A large number of our campers and/or picnickers are Navajo Indians, both local and visitors from some distance. If we charge or attempt to charge them, we will create a public relation problem of severe proportions. If we do not charge them but do other visitors, we are accused of discrimination and unequal treatment. [152]

The status of concessioner payments to the tribe is a bit confused, however. The major payment was 1-1/2 percent of the gross receipts for both the guest ranch and the trading post. In 1964 this amounted to $5,455.79. The franchise fee as such was only $300 and was kept on deposit as a guarantee of operation, although deposited in the name of the tribe. [153] The fact that a major portion of the business generated by the Park Service presence at Canyon de Chelly profited a non-Navajo businessman was to be an obstacle to good relations on both the tribal and local levels for many years to come. It must also have severely complicated the administration of concessioner management, contributing to the touchy relations often hinted at in accounts such as the safety inspection report noted earlier and the rate negotiations discussion mentioned below.

In July the rate schedule for the Thunderbird Ranch was submitted. Aside from relatively minor changes in prices and the use of a new system of "a la carte" listing, there was little difference, except that no rate control was included for the trading post, this part of the operation henceforth being entirely regulated by the Bureau and the tribe. The curio store, however, did remain under Park Service regulation. Again, there was mention of the lack of full cooperation on the part of the concessioner when devising the new schedule. [154]

Despite Guillet's efforts to train the guides who operated in the canyons, there was a complaint that summer that La Font's drivers on the jeep tours, having "extremely limited educations," were poorly informed on the history of the area; college students, it was suggested, would make better guides. [155]. The drivers were not identified and it is uncertain what follow-up resulted at Canyon de Chelly.

A major advance in 1964 was the completion of the new visitor center in June. [156] This was barely in time to keep pace with the increasing visitation and the work load it imposed on a small staff. According to a report submitted in August:

we are now operating a new Visitor Center, serving over twice as many visitors as last year and doing it with no increase in seasonal graded personnel and one less ungraded position. To do this it is necessary to schedule tours of duty with a minimum of overlap and require unlimited contributed overtime. We are fortunate to have a staff loyal and interested enough to contribute this uncompensated time. This will not last ofrever [sic] and services, etc. will out of necessity have to decrease. [157]

The exhibits had been designed, and only a little work remained on assembling a few additional items for inclusion in the displays before they were ready to install. Loans of specimens were arranged from the Arizona State Museum, the American Museum of Natural History, the University of Colorado, and The Kit Carson Memorial Foundation. What were assumed to be the final photographs were sent to San Francisco in May. [158] In July Guillet was asked to obtain specimens of Navajo jewelry for the exhibit on Navajo crafts. It was suggested that he try to get these from the tribe as donations or at reduced prices since their use would be of advertising value to the Navajos. [159] Whether he succeeded in this is not recorded, but additional requests for photographs required more shipments of pictures in July and August. [160] By September 10 the exhibits were almost complete and the monument was sent exhibit record forms detailing the cleaning and maintenance that they would require. [161] The exhibits themselves arrived at the end of the month, and on October 14 Exhibit Specialists Clair Younkin and Reginald Butcher arrived to install them. [162] Installation of displays at some of the overlooks along the canyon added to the interpretive facilities that did not require personal services, while new slide talks were prepared for evening use at the campground. [163]

While Navajo contributions to the planning and development of the expanded interpretive program may have remained somewhat limited, the number of tribal members who were recipients of these services was increasing markedly. The extent to which adult tribesmen availed themselves of these opportunities is difficult to judge, although it is apparent that Guillet did not ignore them in his visitation figures as had some of the early custodians. Children as members of school classes and other organized groups received special mention in reports of interpretive activities, however, and a large proportion of these were all or largely Navajo. In May, a prime month for school visits, a special tour was given to 27 students from the Chinle Public Elementary School, and other groups included 21 students and teachers from a Seventh Day Adventist Mission School, 32 students and teachers from the Pinon Public Elementary School, 28 students from the Tohatchi Public Elementary School, 30 students from the Ganado Elementary School, and another 120 students in two groups from the Chinle Public Elementary School. [164] The monument had clearly become important because of its educational potential within Navajo country. This developing new role for the monument was receiving recognition and would be taken into account in future interpretive planning to a greater degree. Regional Director Daniel B. Beard wrote the Director:

As you know, the scope of the interpretive program was expanded because Navajos from all over the reservation take considerable interest in this area as an historic site of importance in their Tribal history.

The nature and size of the collections might change considerably from time to time. Audiovisual programs should be well done and must be bilingual. [165]

Toward the end of the year a new procedure was instituted for Guillet's reports on Navajo affairs. All correspondence of any sort relating to this subject sent to the regional office was also to be sent to the Director. Special reports were to be made also on certain subjects, which would then be handled only summarily in the monthly reports. [166] The importance of Guillet's work, affecting directly or indirectly at least nine Park Service areas, had thus given him direct access to the very top levels of administration in virtually any situation that he might consider significant in its relation to tribal matters.

In 1965 Guillet devoted much of his time to implementing the policies he had worked out during the preceeding 2 years. The massive increase in visitation and the undersized staff hampered further innovation, but significant gains were made along the lines already laid out.

Continued political turmoil at Window Rock prevented any real accomplishments on the tribal level, but the major efforts were still directed toward matters in local Navajo relations. [167]

The hiring of Navajo personnel continued to be an important goal, but received a minor setback early in the year when Helen Draper, hired as clerk-typist in a career-conditional position, resigned. [168] Navajos filled all laborer and truck driver positions, however, and the seasonal ranger positions were taken by Clarence Gorman, who returned in May, and Larry Dennison, who was hired in June. [169] James Ashike also served as a seasonal ranger, but available sources do not document the date of his hiring. [170] Gorman stayed on until October 23, was rehired as a laborer the next day, and was promoted to Foreman I and given career-conditional status on November 21. [171]

The contracting of construction and soil and moisture jobs that did not require special equipment to local Navajos was also continued. On June 1 five contracts of this sort were let; one for the planting of 15,000 seedlings and 5,000 willow cuttings; two others for the building of spider jetties at the del Muerto crossing and at headquarters; one for painting a comfort station; and the fifth for spraying to control insect infestation. [172]

Of special value during the summer were the 16 Navajo students hired under the Neighborhood Youth Corps program. [173] A winter program of the same sort allowed the monument to put 9 students to work in October. [174]

Even with this extra help, the level of visitation required more time for visitor services and patrol than the available staff could afford. During the summer a ranger was stationed at Tsaile Lake to control entry from the upper end of Canyon del Muerto. In this the support of the Tsaile Chapter was obtained by Cook, who attended one of their meetings and explained the problem. His talk was applauded by the chapter members and they passed unanimously a resolution asking the Park Service to establish a ranger station at the lake. [175] His job was made especially difficult because many people did not realize that this was part of the monument and questioned his authority over it. [176] One particular case, in which Chief Ranger Wallace himself took part, was important because it raised the question of jurisdiction. While on routine patrol at the lake he was told by local Navajos that non-Indians had gone down the canyon. He proceeded down the stream and found four men fishing from 1 to 1-1/2 miles below the dam. One of the men was Freeman Tabor of the Bureau of Sports Fisheries. Tabor had helped stock the fish and strongly resented being told that they should not fish there. Wallace handled the situation as diplomatically as possible, explaining the Service's duty to protect the ruins and pointing out a ruin nearby when the fisherman doubted that there were any that far up the canyon. Although Wallace was able to leave them on friendly terms, he wrote a detailed report of the incident. [177] Guillet had signs posted in the area and reported the problem to the regional office. [178]

George W. Miller, acting regional director, wrote the Bureau of Sports Fisheries office in Albuquerque in an effort to settle the matter. [179] A meeting was held by Guillet with Bureau of Sports Fisheries officials on July 27, and an agreement was reached that ensured Park Service control of entry into the canyon. [180] Fishing was allowed for a half mile below the dam, at which point signs and a fence were erected. The tribal Parks and Recreation Department and the National Park Service issued a joint press release explaining the rules and regulations applying at Tsaile. [181]

Various innovations were tried in an attempt to control the increase in unauthorized canyon entries. Among these were horseback patrols and occasional checks by airplane. [182] Funds did not permit the purchase of horses, but rental was possible, and some of the Navajo rangers were willing to contribute their horses. [183] High water frequently curtailed patrol in the canyon bottom during the year, but even under these adverse conditions there were unauthorized entries into the canyons. [184] On January 31 a party of Public Health Service employees illegally drove a sand buggy as far as First Ruin before getting stuck. By the time the incident was reported the water was too high to allow the Park Service power wagon to reach it, and by February 2 the sand buggy had disappeared below the sand. [185] Another party drove a jeep down the foot trail to the Spider Rock Overlook and a rock barricade had to be erected to prevent further vehicular traffic there. [186] Continuing wet weather meant only foot patrols could check the canyon bottom. [187] Vandalism in the more remote areas included the removal of the Spider Rock sign, which caused some visitors to end up at Three Turkey House when trying to find the overlook. [188] By June the canyons were dry enough to be entered, but the danger of becoming stuck was great. Several parties that entered the canyons without permits were escorted out by ranger patrols as travel increased and were all given lectures by the chief ranger. [189]

A particularly touchy case of vandalism was the removal of skulls from two Navajo burials by visitors. The rangers were able to recover them and they were returned to the graves, which were reburied with soil and rock. [190]

Heavy use of the campground required increased patrol in that area also. Increased Navajo use of alcoholic beverages caused some problems, most of which were handled through cooperation with the tribal police. [191] Evening patrols of the campground and headquarters areas were begun in February because of vandalism and disturbances. [192] A rodeo on Memorial Day weekend filled the campground to capacity and extra patrols were required. A special picnic ground for Navajo visitors was set up to help take some of the load off the main campground. [193] The annual Chinle Rodeo was held the end of July and again the campground, having the only public restrooms in town, received heavy use. Maintenance of the facilities was an especially difficult job under the circumstances, and Guillet commented that "we received both compliments and complaints regarding the condition of the restrooms." [194]

The increasing number of problems led to a series of meetings between Wallace and the Navajo Tribal Police. They were able to work out better communications and a coordination of activities that increased mutual assistance. [195] Visitation remained heavy well into the fall and required time that was normally scheduled for post-season maintenance work. [196] Vandalism by both Indian and non-Indian youths became so bad in the campground and headquarters areas that rangers were asked to do night patrol on contributed time. [197] While earlier problems of vandalism might have been a reflection of the general condition of Park Service-Navajo relations in the area, at this time relations with the local people were good, suggesting that the problems encountered were probably more a result of broader white-Navajo conflicts and of the stresses brought on by the increasing urbanization of the Chinle community. The unceasing political factionalism in tribal affairs and the influence of the civil rights movement had both contributed to a growing strain on white-Navajo relations throughout the reservation. Guillet's attention to local rapport had not failed because of these conditions, but his job was made more difficult.

Assistance to Navajo residents of the canyons remained a matter of high priority and involved the usual types of emergency aid. The wet year brought an unusual number of requests to help stuck vehicles, both in the canyons and at the del Muerto crossing, which was repeatedly washed out, repaired, and again washed out. Figures reported of cars and trucks rescued combine those of visitors, Navajos, and governmental agencies, but the numbers are high for the year, with calls for help being answered at all times of the day and night. [198] In April alone 145 vehicles required help at the del Muerto crossing. [199] Rescue efforts were even required for a team and wagon and for a horse caught in quicksand. [200] In one case a Navajo child was asphyxiated in a partially submerged vehicle at the del Muerto crossing and had to be hurried to the Public Health Service Clinic where he was successfully treated. [201] In October the contract for the bridge at the del Muerto crossing was awarded and the only possible solution to the problems there was at last in sight. [202] Work began on November 5 and by the end of the year the bridge was reportedly 21 percent completed. [203]

Miscellaneous emergency assistance included the rescue, with slings and ropes, of 22 goats that had been chased over the cliff by predators. [204]

Not all Navajo-related duties were so conducive to good will. In November it was necessary to have a discussion with a Navajo stockman who had cut the fence at Tsaile to take his sheep through. He agreed not to repeat the offense. [205]

An earlier problem, in April, was that of securing a right of way through the customary use area of Ahghinanabah Hunter in order to make improvements on the south entry road. [206] She was willing to grant this, but did impose conditions in return:

The National Park Service agrees to replace and/or relocate any existing fences which might be disturbed by or for construction purposes. Said fences to be sheep-proof in construction.

It is further agreed that the National Park Service will construct an underpass suitable for vehicle and stock passage between Points PT20+78.35 and PI-19+02.48. This underpass shall be so constructed as not to divert surface water into existing farm plots but to follow the same general runoff pattern now established. [207]

No difficulty was encountered in negotiating the agreement. [208]

The interpretive program underwent some changes during the year, but gains were probably offset somewhat by losses. A new campfire circle was designed, but no work accomplished in its construction, while the audio-visual room in the visitor center was converted for use as a library and workspace for the archeologist. [209] With the heavy work load for the limited staff and the loss of Stewart, who was replaced as archeologist by a man (Robert Nichols) with no experience in the interpretive field, the organizational system had to be changed to permit greater flexibility in work assignments and to give the chief ranger some administrative responsibility for the interpretive work. [210] Work continued on new wayside exhibits and on a revision of the White House Trail guide booklet, but the demand for interpretive services soon left little time for the development of new materials. [211] By March all uniformed personnel and the clerk-typist were taking turns at the information desk, and in April only the use of contributed time allowed the personnel to keep up with the job. [212] By June the addition of seasonal help had permitted programs in the campground and the audio visual room, [213] and in July the presence of Neighborhood Youth Corps students made possible additional services, including conducted tours at White House. [214] Even so there was not time to keep up with development of interpretive facilities. The old wayside exhibits at White House Overlook had reached such a state of disrepair in August that they had to be removed, but completion of the planned replacements had not been possible. [215] The departure of the seasonals in the fall was a great loss, because there was little decrease in tourist visitation. [216]

Navajo use of interpretive services again is possible to document only in relation to school groups, but in this category it at least continued high. [217] By participation in the tribal fair Guillet again took his interpretive program to the Navajos. [218]

Research activities were relatively great compared to many other years, despite the limitations locally. A part of these were not Service-connected but were done by workers from other institutions who made some use of Service facilities. In August Minor Van Arsdale and Peter Snyder of the University of Colorado visited the monument while doing a study of Navajo relocation. [219] In October Dr. Mary Shepardson was in the area doing work on Navajo law. [220] Park Service research was primarily of a sort that did not require the work time of area personnel. Sallie Van Valkenburgh spent two periods at the monument—from the middle of June until the beginning of August and from about October 19 into November—doing further field research for her study of Navajo mythology, oral history, and geography. [221]

Archeology also received attention. Archeological clearances were provided by monument personnel as requested for tribal, Bureau, and other construction projects, often by non-archeologists, however. [222] Nichols, the new archeologist, was very interested in research and devoted considerable contributed time to field surveys besides cooperating with other archeologists interested in problems at Canyon de Chelly. [223]

Four publications during the year were contributions to the interpretive program. Guillet did an article for the National Parks Magazine entitled "Nature and Man in Canyon de Chelly," which appeared in the July 1965 issue. The October issue of Arizona Highways featured the canyon and stimulated fall visitation. [224] Another was a tour guide, Land of the Navajo, by Bob Bradshaw, which gave special emphasis to Canyon de Chelly and Monument Valley. [225] A booklet, Canyon de Chelly National Monument, by Charles Suplee and Douglas and Barbara Anderson of Ganado, was published in March and became an important sales item at the monument. [226]

With increased visitation came greater use of the concessioner's facilities, which were not equipped for this volume of business. By the end of the summer Guillet had to report that

Complaints regarding the concessioner have begun to come in, two written and several verbal, all necessitating considerable time and effort to handle.

Unless attitudes change it is becoming apparent that this concessioner is not geared to handle the continuing increased visitor load. Despite our best and strongest efforts we are not too optimistic as regards curtailment of similar complaints. [227]

The concessioner was given permission to close his cafe from November 1 to May 1. Due to the high volume of business, it was suggested that his rates might be reduced when next reviewed. [228]

The precise month that a special use permit was first issued to a Navajo for renting horses does not seem to be noted in the documents the authors have searched. The earliest record found dates from March 1965. [229] A second permit was issued in April for horse rental at Tsaile. [230] Both required tribal approval, but did not preclude horse rental by any other Navajo who might wish to engage in this business. [231]

Relations at the tribal level seemed to show some improvement early in the year. Agreements with the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority on natural gas were made with little difficulty. [232] Guillet was even asked to help organize a tribal conference on recreation and tourism and served as a judge in the annual Miss Navajo competition. [233] Tribal officials also participated in Park Service projects. A special evening program at the monument for a visiting group of trainees from the Albright Training Center in September featured not only tribal rangers, but other tribal employees and Bureau personnel as well. [234] In December the program was repeated. [235] Tribal personnel were assigned to work as trainees in maintenance at the monument in November. [236] Little of this activity had much effect on the council or higher administrative levels at Window Rock, but Guillet's patient work was to have a significant influence within a few months time.

Guillet's last year at Canyon de Chelly ended in August 1966. There were no new major innovations in his program to better Park Service relations with the Navajos; if anything, there was some relaxing in the intensity of these efforts. Why this should be so is not entirely clear, but the answer can perhaps be found in a lessening of the strong support his policies were receiving at higher administrative levels. The most obvious aspect of this is seen in personnel matters.

The work load increased markedly. Visitation through the end of July was 49 percent above that of the previous year. [237] However, there was no increase in personnel, but instead, due to temporary assignments elsewhere, there was frequently a lack of personnel in already established positions. Cook was made superintendent of the new Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site on January 2, and in April Administrative Assistant Tom Cullison was transferred to Sequoia-Kings National Park. [238] In the latter month Nichols was sent for training to Mather Training Center. Guillet tried to look on the bright side as he summed up the discouraging situation at the end of April:

with a travel increase of over 80% and only two-fifths of the former years['] staff. We have had to utilize the services of laborers, maintenance man, clerk-typist and donated overtime and days off, but we are making it.

The use of the Neighborhood Youth Corps helped, but programs still suffered—especially the one dealing with Navajo affairs. Guillet could not take on any new local activities in this field and had to cancel some that he had scheduled. [239] Efforts beyond the local scene were even temporarily abandoned during May. [240] But some relief was in sight. Nichols returned the same month and a new administrative assistant, William J. Weaver, Jr., reported for duty on May 23. [241] The assistant superintendent position remained unfilled, however, and this was the job that had been especially created in order to give Guillet the extra time his work with the Navajos would require.

Contrary to previous policy, most of the seasonal positions were filled with non-Navajos. [242] Failure to find qualified Navajo applicants for these positions was probably due to the lack of time available for recruiting efforts.

The level of interpretive services remained high, because first priority was given to this essential duty. Interpretive contacts with Navajos, at least with schoolchildren, were numerous, reaching such a point that Guillet commented upon the trend in the "Indian Relations" section of his monthly report for April. [243] An important addition to the interpretive program was the institution of the Tunnel Trail guided tours. [244]

Problems of illegal entries and vandalism grew as visitation increased and as difficulties in scheduling patrols arose because of the demands of other duties, although it was seldom the tourists who were the guilty parties. There were six cases of illegal entries in April, all by local residents who knew of the restrictions on canyon travel, and in one case employees of the local public school were involved. [245] A number of these trespass cases the following month involved penetration of the ruins. [246] Intensified patrol after the seasonal rangers arrived in June and their good luck in being at the right place at the right time served to temporarily curb this activity, but some damage was reported at White House before a Youth Corps trainee could be stationed there. [247] Unauthorized entries continued into the next month. [248] By August, even though 11 parties had been found by rangers and escorted from the canyons, there had been one incident of unknown persons defacing rocks and walls at First Ruin and the first reports of pothunting since Guillet had returned to the canyons. Unidentified visitors had dug under the walls and into the trash mound at Antelope House, using their hands and sticks from nearby trees. [249] The date of this last incident has not been pinpointed precisely and may well have taken place after Guillet's departure, but is a not unexpected culmination of the situation developing as a result of an overworked staff.

The pothunting was obviously of a minor and unpremeditated nature. The increasing illegal entries were a cause for concern to the Navajos as well. Guillet commented on this aspect succinctly:

Our explanation to the Navajo people as to why we do not have enough Rangers to adequately patrol all the features as well as their privacy is not satisfactory to them. With the increase in Visitors there is no doubt that there will be an increase in illegal entries and embarrassing incidents involving the Navajo people who reside within the Monument. If this situation continues we could very well take a backward step in our Navajo Public Relations. [250]

There were some problems in law enforcement involving Navajo violators, particularly with regard to drinking, but all such matters were referred to the Navajo police to be handled by the tribal courts. [251]

Vandalism in the campground and at the overlooks grew in seriousness during the summer. In June the exhibits at the overlooks had to be removed, and loitering at the campground by local young people was noted as a problem. [252] By July the matter was viewed with real concern:

a night patrol has become necessary due to an outbreak of vandalism and disturbances by local young people. There were 14 nights during the month when acts of vandalism and disturbances occurred. Traffic control signs were destroyed, trash recepticles [sic] thrown over the cliffs, eggs thrown at Government residences and vehicles. Motor scooters in the campgrounds during the late evening and at night operated by local youths necessitated closing the campgrounds to all persons not camping after 9:00 p.m. All local youths have been informed that the campgrounds are restricted to camping and picnicing [sic] only.

All of the incidents mentioned were caused by non-Indian teenage children whose parents are either teachers or BIA employees.

The lack of a United States Commissioner or court makes it almost impossible to arrest these persons for minor violations. The Navajo Police have detailed a unit to our area to assist in law enforcement, however, they are restricted in their jurisdiction over non-Indians. [253]

Enforcement of a curfew and additional night patrol work by rangers and tribal police managed to alleviate the situation somewhat in August. [254]

Cooperation with the Navajo police extended to allowing the local police to use the visitor center for a 2-day meeting when they were unable to locate any other building in Chinle large enough for the affair. [255]

The contractor building the bridge kept the del Muerto crossing in good condition most of the time and the need to rescue vehicles there diminished. April, usually a bad month at the crossing because of runoff from the mountains, passed without having to close the area, "for the first time in history," according to Guillet. [256] By the end of June the bridge was reported 100 percent complete. [257] Guillet now had something concrete that he could mention as a Park Service contribution serving the entire community.

Lesser projects that were intended to aid the canyon residents included an insect spraying program. Preparations were begun as early as March at the first signs that insect damage might be expected. [258] It was necessary to work out cooperative plans with the Bureau, however, and so spraying did not begin until after May 12, when grasshopper damage to Navajo crops was already extensive. [259] Most crops were lost and even some peach trees suffered. The erosion control plantings were saved, but not without some loss. [260]

Guillet's greatest contribution was not the bridge nor the various types of emergency aid given canyon residents, nor even the filling of more positions with Navajos, although all of these contributed to his success. He was able to create a mutual feeling of good will that was felt even at the tribal level in the last months of his tenure at the monument. On behalf of the Park Service he had long been involved in negotiations with the tribe concerning planned recreational development at Lake Powell. This story does not directly concern Canyon de Chelly, and so has not been covered here. Attempts to resolve conflicting interests in the Lake Powell area had, however, met a snag when a white director of the Navajo Tribal Parks and Recreation Department, Frank Carson, tried to arouse general tribal opposition to the National Park Service in the highly charged political atmosphere at Window Rock, apparently to advance his own interests politically. Carson failed to get the full support of even his own department, however, and his failure was perhaps most dramatically evidenced by the appearance of the tribal chairman as a speaker at the dedication of the new visitor center at Navajo National Monument. [261] Carson tried to arouse a new movement on the part of the tribe to take over Canyon de Chelly. Even after Guillet's transfer, the good relations that he had developed were a legacy to John Cook, who replaced him, and were to prevent the monument from becoming a political football. Cook's first monthly report as superintendent of Canyon de Chelly paid well-earned tribute to Guillet's work:

The Guillet's [sic] departure caused considerable concern with the local Navajo people as they felt the National Park Service would revert to regular assignment procedured [sic] in staffing Canyon de Chelly resulting in someone not compatable [sic] with its uniqueness. The assignment of John Cook as Acting Superintendent has helped reduce these concerns considerable [sic].

Through the continued efforts of the area staff plus the aforementioned continuity of administration local or "grass roots" relations remain excellent.

.   .   .    .   .

Dr. Handlin mentions a "cry" over Canyon de Chelly for its return to the Navajo Tribe. Such a move would meet resistance on the local level here right now. If we loose [sic] our position of trust, reestablished through Mr. Guillet's activities, the move might fare differently overnight. In any event any "cry" in this regard is currently a one man affair. . . .

Meredith Guillet's success as superintendent at Canyon de Chelly can perhaps best be attested to by noting that the only serious public relations problems at Canyon de Chelly when he left were not with Navajos but with non-Indians.