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

After Rainbow Bridge became part of the national park system, it was not long before it was caught up in numerous controversies. Immediately after the bridge was mapped and made a monument, members of the Cummings/Douglass expedition were embroiled in arguments over which white man saw the bridge first and which Paiute guide actually knew the way to the bridge. But the significance of Rainbow Bridge to certain Native American groups also became the subject of controversy. Given the historic presence of Native Americans near Rainbow Bridge, it was only a matter of time before the interests of Indian groups clashed with the interests of the monument's federal managers. While many peoples, such as the Hopi and the San Juan Paiute, considered Rainbow Bridge important to their origin stories, the most strenuous claims to the bridge's sacred status have been made by the Navajo Nation. These claims were eventually part of litigation that affected the way the National Park Service currently manages the monument. This chapter will detail the Navajo origin story as it pertains to Rainbow Bridge and identify the relationship between those beliefs and various lawsuits filed by the Navajo Nation to protect them. In addition, this chapter will explore the outcome of those lawsuits as pertains to NPS management policy at Rainbow Bridge.

While Anglo culture appreciated Rainbow Bridge for its aesthetic beauty and geologic uniqueness, Navajos have identified Rainbow Bridge as a sacred, religious site. They believe it is integral to the story of their emergence into this world. The ingress of Native American peoples to the Rainbow Bridge area provides some of the data to support Navajo claims to cultural and historical preeminence in the region. The hearth located at the foot of the bridge, excavated by Park Service archeologists in 1994, suggests a definite and early Native American awareness of the bridge. The non-secular cultural characteristics of these ancestral Puebloans also allows contemporary scholars to at least argue that the bridge was a source of worship during the last 1,500 years. But the incorporation of Rainbow Bridge in Navajo religious beliefs is more readily documented than suppositions concerning ancestral Puebloans. One of the problems associated with examining this subject is the set of academic standards in place that mitigates the veracity of Navajo claims on Rainbow Bridge. Too many historians demand a degree of quantitative proof that cultures who rely on oral tradition cannot provide. Neil Judd's comments in 1924 regarding the double standard of Anglo history were especially prescient with respect to Navajo religious claims on Rainbow Bridge.

Unfortunately, quantitative standards for proof do not mesh easily with the qualitative study of Native American religion. To understand the Navajo conception of the religious and cultural significance of Rainbow Bridge, one must make use of different conceptions about what merits belief and about what constitutes a legitimate belief structure. This is less problematic when coupled to the physical evidence that verifies a long-standing Navajo cultural tradition at Rainbow Bridge. That evidence includes detailed oral histories that document a pattern of religious belief involving the bridge; detailed descriptions of a primitive altar at the base of Rainbow Bridge prior to 1930; and, physical evidence of early Navajo existence in the region. What is important to remember is that one need not agree with the tradition that involves Rainbow Bridge religion in order for that tradition to have merit to Navajos. Their beliefs are as circumambient to them as the air they breath.

Part of the larger Navajo origin story includes the importance of the four sacred mountains. When First Man (Áltsé Hastiin) and First Woman (Áltsé Asdzáá) emerged into the Fourth World they created the four sacred mountains. After the first four Navajo clans emerged from a subsequent global flood, they moved into the area bounded by these four mountains. This was the original Dinétah (Navajo country). Those mountains are recognized today as San Francisco Peak, Gobernador Peak, Mount Taylor, and Mount Blanca. Some scholars argue that the Navajo origin story reveals much about the ontology of the Navajo people. The importance of place and the relationship of place to spirituality is evidenced in the four sacred mountains. The full account of the origin story reveals dozens of place-specific episodes that can be recognized in modern geography. Every nation, the Navajo included, has found tremendous nationalist spirit in places and place-specific events. [203] The Navajo belief structure is one that cannot be separated from the natural world. Mountains, water, and various natural features imbue their religion just as edifices and geographies underpin Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. The Navajo origin story also informs their value structure and social organization. It is not hard to discern the Navajo desire for order and their devotion to clan-based politics from their story of the world's beginning. The fact that Navajos pray to certain gods and assign importance to the location in which those prayers take place only evidences their dedication to polytheism in the face of other people's commitment to monotheism. It certainly does not mitigate their value structure on a comparative level; after all, much of the world's current population is polytheistic.

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

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

Unfortunately, Coyote decided to cause mischief during the escape. As Coyote watched the rising water, he noticed the child of Tééhooltsódii (Water Monster). Coyote decided he wanted to keep the child and raise it as his own. He took the child and hid him from Tééhooltsódii. In response, Tééhooltsódii made the waters rise up the reed behind the group, which threatened to drown everyone. The group pleaded with Coyote to give the child back to Tééhooltsódii. After pleading with Coyote four times, Coyote released the child. To appease Water Baby's parents, the group made offerings to Tééhooltsódii and the water receded enough for the group to escape. At this time, the Glittering World was inhabited by gods and spirits. There were no humans. Locust surveyed the land after emergence and found it covered with water. Big Horn Sheep dug canyons with his horns so the water could escape to the ocean. This is how canyons were formed. Locust then decided that fires should be lit so the gods would know of the group's presence. It was in this world that the first sweat bath was taken and the first hogan was built. The stars were placed in the great sky. In the Glittering World developed the seasons and the harvest. When the first emergents spied Navajo Mountain in the distance, they regarded it as the Head of the Earth.

It was at this point that two of the most important figures in Navajo religion appeared: the Hero Twins. After the first fires were lit, Áltsé Hastiin and Áltsé Asdzáá noticed tracks that led to the west. Part of the group decided to follow the tracks. The tracks were left by White Shell Woman's children, born to her after the Sun committed adultery with her before the emergence. These children are known to the Navajo as the Hero Twins: Naayéé' Neizgh´ní (Monster Slayer) and T&ocaute; Baj&icaute;sh Chini (Born For Water). To travel to the western oceans and visit White Shell Woman, the group used rainbows to cover great distances. As the group proceeded west, they encountered the many monsters and evil spirits that were byproducts of the Sun's adultery. After visiting White Shell Woman in the west, the group returned with the Hero Twins, hoping they would grow up to battle the monsters and evil spirits.

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

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

All of the residents of the Navajo Mountain community interviewed for this administrative history detailed the same origin story. The only deviations that occurred were in the minute details that some respondents were hesitant to reveal. These people consider those details part of their identity as a people and therefore not open to public consumption. The Navajo are still very much an oral culture. The lessons contained in the entire origin story are meant to serve as lessons for Navajo children. What specific substances were offered to which gods or the details of various ceremonies are told from Navajo parents and grandparents to Navajo youth, not to whites or other interested parties. The Navajos interviewed for this history spoke often about cultural ownership and identity regarding their stories. But Anglo misunderstanding of Navajo life ways has a long history.

The clan-based Navajo socio-political structure was at odds with Anglo (mis)conceptions of Native Americans at least as early as the 19th century. Navajo tribal historian Bill Acrey, tracing the development of the modern Navajo nation, found that the initial contact between Anglos and the Diné was laden with the classic repugnance of Anglo attempts to mold Navajos into yeoman farmers. [205] In the period between 1846 and 1860 there were more than five separate treaties of peace, all initiated by United States military commanders in response to livestock and slave raiding conducted by the Diné. Each of these treaties contained some provision which demanded Navajos stop raiding and embrace the farming ethic of the expanding United States. The lack of cultural understanding on the part of military personnel led to the demise of every treaty. For example, the Treaty of Ojo del Oso in 1848 forbade the Diné from raiding into New Mexico settlements because the United States was no longer at war with the Mexicans. This made no sense to Diné leaders because the Diné believed that an enemy was always an enemy regardless of political climate. American treaty negotiators continually made the assumption that there was some central form of leadership among the Diné. American military personnel assumed that those Diné leaders who signed the various treaties represented all the Diné. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The Diné signatories knew that they only represented their individual bands and that those bands not represented in signature on the treaty would never abide by its terms. These were just a few of the cultural misunderstandings that occurred between 1846 and 1860.

In 1863, the enmity that had formed between the Diné and the U.S. military culminated in the Bosque Redondo War and the military defeat of the Diné. Leading a scorched earth campaign, Kit Carson brought the Diné to their knees by late 1863. At that point, all the Diné that could be rounded up were marched through the winter months and incarcerated at the Bosque Redondo reservation, located at the newly erected Fort Sumner. The Diné endured four years of starvation and disease but persevered to a palatable solution. In 1868, the Diné successfully negotiated the Treaty of Bosque Redondo and were allowed to return to their ancestral homelands. The red rock mesas and canyons that the Navajo returned to formed the original Navajo reservation. In addition, the treaty stipulated that livestock would be returned to the Diné. As a result of both perseverance and excellent husbandry techniques, Navajo and livestock populations increased every year after the incarceration at Fort Sumner.

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

Like most ethnohistorians, Luckert tried to place the religious significance of Rainbow Bridge and Navajo Mountain in the proper historical context. For many of the Navajo singers interviewed as part of Luckert's project, Rainbow Bridge and Navajo Mountain were considered sanctuary from the ravages of Kit Carson's campaign against the Diné. At the time, many Navajos still held fresh memories of tribal experiences with the United States military and of the incarceration at Fort Sumner. But there were many Navajos who eluded Carson and avoided Fort Sumner altogether. Those Navajos hid in the numerous canyons of northern New Mexico and southern Utah. In addition to the role of the bridge in Navajo emergence, the added element of sanctuary endeared both Navajo Mountain and Rainbow Bridge to contemporary Navajos. It was in those terms that Luckert's interviewees figured Navajo Mountain and Rainbow Bridge as key fixtures in the story of Monster Slayer. The Navajo people refer to their sacred mountain in the northwest of their reservation not as "Navajo" Mountain but as Naatsis'áán (Earth Head). [207]

In the oral histories collected by Luckert, all the interviewees told basically the same story with regard to Navajo Mountain and Rainbow Bridge as those stories collected in 2000 for this administrative history. The origin story that was taught to Navajo singers included Navajo Mountain and Rainbow Bridge. That story also included the modern details of a group of Navajos attempting to evade the United States military. Fleeing Navajos perceived the fortuitous location of Navajo Mountain as a sign that their gods were watching over them. They perceived the canyons of the region to be gifts from Head of Earth. Whatever their motivations or proclivities, the fact is that all Navajo singers interviewed by Luckert couched their origin story in the benevolence of Navajo Mountain and the peculiar beauty of Rainbow Bridge. Each interviewee recalled in some form that in the days when humankind was born, Monster Slayer was transferred and born and raised in Bridge Canyon. When the Navajo were threatened, Monster Slayer (clothed in an armor of flint) and the Head of the Earth placed themselves as shields between the Navajo and Kit Carson. This event still echoes in the formalized Protectionway prayers of contemporary singers. [208]

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

I have conducted countless religious ceremonies and sings throughout the area surrounding Rainbow Bridge and Navajo Mountain. Rainbow Bridge is extremely sacred to the Diné, as are many of the sites and much of the area surrounding the Bridge. The water from the lake has already entered the Canyon of the Rainbow Bridge and has covered the grounds sacred to the Diné.

When the Diné were emerging from the east they stopped at a large mesa near Navajo Mountain to make a home on the mountain for Lageinayal. He is the god who was given lightning to create rain. His name means "came into being one day." In gratitude for his home on Navajo Mountain, Lageinayal promised to protect the Diné and look after their well being. Sometime later, a group of the Diné left this home with a god named Danaiize. He has the power to create and to travel on the rainbow. The Diné reached a canyon which they could not cross. Danaiize told them he would create a rock rainbow which would be a bridge for the Diné. It was in this way that the Diné were able to cross the Canyon of the Rainbow Bridge. [210]

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

There was another common understanding among various interviewees regarding Rainbow Bridge: the existence of a "sacred" spring below the bridge in Bridge Canyon. In 1974, Nakai Ditloi detailed for the courts his recollections of the spring and the specific ceremonies that were performed there:

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

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

The other detail that most Navajo singers agreed on was the identity of the Navajo man who first brought them, or their fathers, knowledge of the bridge. His name was Áshiihí bin áá' ádiní (Old Blind Salt Clansman or Old Hashkéniinii). This was the same man who told Louisa Wetherill about the bridge in 1907. It was Áshiihí bin áá' ádiní who helped many of the 20th century singers with the rites associated with Rainbow Bridge. The one obvious problem with Luckert's interviews was the misconception that Navajos did not arrive near Navajo Mountain until the 1860s, being chased there by Carson. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Celone Dougi, Áshiihí bin áá' ádiní's granddaughter, was interviewed for this administrative history in 2000. She said that her grandfather had always been here, along with many other Navajos. Most of the Navajos and Paiutes interviewed for this administrative history were able to recount a long lineage in the Navajo Mountain area, remembering relatives born near the mountain as far back as the 1820s. But what is important is that most Navajo singers and other residents from the region credit Áshiihí bin áá' ádiní with both early knowledge of the bridge and its associated religious rites. [214]

It is unlikely that Navajos were the only people to find religious significance in the bridge. A fair argument can be made that early inhabitants of the region found the bridge and likely prayed there. The existence of the hearth excavated at the foot of the bridge (see chapter 2), the proximity of ancestral Puebloan dwellings, and the number of other pre-Puebloan sites a short distance from Bridge Canyon makes it likely that early inhabitants of the region found the bridge. Besides the oral tradition of Navajo religious beliefs involving Rainbow Bridge, there is other, albeit limited, physical evidence of religious worship at the bridge.

After the Cummings/Douglass expedition reached Rainbow Bridge on August 14, 1909, members of the party fanned out to explore the immediate vicinity. Cummings observed a small "fire shrine in the shadow on the bench at one side." [215] The details of the location are important in their comparative value. Cummings' observation put the shrine on the north side of the bridge, which would have been shadowed by a noon sun climbing into the sky above Bridge Canyon. Judd reported seeing the same shrine. He wrote that "near the down-curving buttress, but slightly to one side, is a small heap of stones inclosing a slab sided receptacle, the altar of cliff dwelling peoples who roamed this canyon country long before the Navaho [sic] won it for themselves." [216] William Douglass made a similar note. He reported that "almost under the arch, on the north side of the gulch [was] the wall of some small prehistoric structure in front of which slabs of sandstone set on edge outline an oval 3x5 feet—an altar . . . ." [217] Temporal and cultural observations aside, the consistency in these descriptions allows some suppositions to be made regarding the non-secular traits of early inhabitants of the region and the possibility that they worshiped near the bridge. Before 1930, other travelers to the bridge noted the stone altar as well. Notable among these visitors was Theodore Roosevelt. He described what he saw as "the ruin of a very ancient shrine." [218] It seems clear that before the 1930s, when someone or something destroyed the altar-like structure, Rainbow Bridge was used as a worship site.

There was and still is a long history of Native American activity at Rainbow Bridge. Between 1970 and 1971, when the waters from Lake Powell began to creep up Bridge Canyon and into the monument, some Navajos were more than a little concerned. They were certain of their own history at the bridge and gave little thought to the fact that their history was unwritten. Outside some case-specific context, Navajos did not feel any need to record in written form the practice of religious ceremonies at Rainbow Bridge. Sometimes cultures overlook the significance of recording an activity when that activity is frequent and not out of the ordinary. In any event, the steady advance of encroaching waters between 1970 and 1974 dictated that the Navajo had to do something to preserve their religious heritage.

On September 3, 1974, the Navajo Legal Aid Society (DNA) filed suit in U.S. district court to stop waters from Lake Powell from entering Bridge Canyon. [219] The plaintiffs were eight Navajo singers, including Nakai Ditloi, Lamar Badoni, Teddy Holiday, and Jimmy Goodman. Shonto, Navajo Mountain, and Inscription House chapters of the Navajo Nation were also listed as plaintiffs. The suit named some important defendants: Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Gilbert R. Stamm; NPS Director George B. Hartzog; and Secretary of the Interior Rogers C.B. Morton. The relief sought in the suit centered around the Navajo claim that "Rainbow Bridge [was] a religious symbol and a focal point through which many prayers and religious ceremonies derive meaning and vitality by reason of its role in the emergence of the Navajo people." The suit argued two major claims for relief. In the first claim, the suit alleged that the flooding of Bridge Canyon by water from Lake Powell desecrated or destroyed numerous sites of religious significance. Additionally, the improved accessibility to Rainbow Bridge provided by Lake Powell had resulted in thousands more tourists in the monument. This directly impeded the ability of Navajo singers and others from performing religious activities at and near the bridge. The negative physical impacts on Rainbow Bridge and its environs, occasioned by increased tourist visitation, were also cited as part of this claim for relief. As a result of these harms, the plaintiffs alleged that their ability to pursue the free exercise of religion was impeded by the current operational status of Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell.

The first claim for relief sought a specific response. The plaintiffs demanded that the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service "to take appropriate steps to operate Glen Canyon Dam . . . in such a manner that the important religious and cultural interests of [the] plaintiffs will not be harmed or degraded." This meant releasing enough water from Lake Powell to let its waters recede from Bridge Canyon. It also meant implementing any measures necessary to curtail harmful tourist activities at the bridge. This claim expressed a concern that was new to the Park Service: Native American belief in the spiritual and cultural significance of a natural edifice and the role of that edifice in the free exercise of a Native American religion. This concept predated the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) by four years. The language used in the DNA suit for describing the sacrosanct status of Rainbow Bridge and its relationship to Navajo religious freedom was strikingly similar to the language eventually used in the AIRFA. But in 1974, the AIRFA did not exist. It is likely that the significance of the Navajo suit and the damages claimed at Rainbow Bridge were definite contributors to the passage of the AIRFA in its final form. After all, the decision in Badoni v. Higginson came less than a year before the AIRFA. Unfortunately the documentary evidence to verify such a claim is beyond the resources and scope of this administrative history. [220]

Because the AIRFA was not law by 1974, the DNA suit made use of existing legislation to underpin the demand for injunctive relief at Rainbow Bridge. The second claim for relief raised the specter of the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) and the historic relationship between the Department of the Interior and Native American tribes. This complaint stipulated that the improper operation of the Glen Canyon Dam violated Section 1 of the CRSP, which mandated the Secretary of the Interior to take adequate protective measures against the impairment of Rainbow Bridge NM. The suit stipulated that protecting the monument meant more than just safeguarding its physical resources. DNA attorneys argued that the plaintiffs were the intended beneficiaries of Section 1, because of their unique and verified interest in the integrity of the bridge and its environs.

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

The issues in these claims clearly revolved around what constituted impairment and whether or not spiritual harm was a justifiable cause for relief. The courts had little practice establishing the veracity of Native American spiritual claims on natural features like Rainbow Bridge. In an unprecedented decision, Judge Aldon J. Anderson ordered a study be undertaken to determine the legitimacy of Navajo oral tradition regarding the religious significance of Rainbow Bridge. The court asked ethnographer Karl Luckert to complete this task. Luckert's collection of oral histories, Navajo Mountain and Rainbow Bridge Religion, was the result. Luckert designed a series of oral interview questions that tried to discern not only the details of the Navajo origin story but also the process by which that story was handed down for preceding generations. As discussed previously in this chapter, Luckert's efforts established a clear and consistent tradition of the bridge's importance to western Navajos.

Federal attorneys argued that summary judgement should be granted to the defendants for one simple, yet overwhelming, reason: the plaintiffs lacked claim to protection of free exercise of religion because they had no property interests in Rainbow Bridge NM. The Navajo Nation did not own the 160 acres that comprised the monument; therefore, the government was under no obligation to protect Navajo religious freedom. Doing what the Navajo plaintiffs demanded—regulating a unit of the national park system for the benefit of non-owners to conduct private religious ceremonies—violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment forbids Congress from establishing a state religion; consequently, legal disputes have arisen periodically over government actions that might constitute an endorsement of a specific religion. This historical controversy became a permanent part of the legal disputes involving Rainbow Bridge. Government attorneys further argued that regulating tourist traffic at the monument in such a way that permitted Navajo access to the bridge for religious reasons while denying non-Navajo visitor access also constituted a violation of the Establishment Clause. The defendants claimed that for any violation of free exercise to occur, the plaintiffs had to establish a verifiable claim on the site where religious ceremonies took place.

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

Unfortunately for the Navajo plaintiffs, the court's willingness to accept the existence of some religious tradition was not enough. Judge Anderson ruled against the Navajos on December 30, 1977, citing two rationales for denying Navajo claims. First, the plaintiffs did not have a free exercise claim because they had no property interest in the monument. The government, by extension, had no responsibility to uphold the free exercise of religion on land it managed as part of the federal estate. Second, even if the plaintiffs could prove a cognizable free exercise claim, the government's interests in the continued operation of Glen Canyon Dam and the larger CRSP outweighed any free exercise claims made by the Navajos. Regarding the specific claims of religious significance at Rainbow Bridge, Judge Anderson went even further. Underpinning his ruling, Anderson cited Wisconsin v. Yoder, a case involving the Wisconsin Board of Education and a group of Amish residents. In Yoder, the court ruled that Wisconsin laws regarding compulsory public education violated Amish principles and the free exercise of their religion. [222] In the final ruling on Yoder, the Supreme Court concluded that the Amish claim to protection under the First Amendment was valid because the traditional way of life for the Amish was not simply a matter of personal preference but "one of deep religious conviction, shared by an organized group, and intimately related to daily living."

It seemed to the Navajos and their attorneys that Yoder actually supported the claims on Rainbow Bridge. The Navajo chapters listed as plaintiffs were an organized group, their religion was a way of life, Navajos had no choice about their Native American birth identity. Moreover, the court had acknowledged the veracity of Navajo faith regarding Rainbow Bridge in its support of Luckert's monograph. But Judge Anderson interpreted Yoder differently than the plaintiffs. On the issues of religion, Rainbow Bridge, and the free exercise of Navajo beliefs, Anderson wrote "the present plaintiffs have gone to great lengths to construct a cognizable action out of their claim of First Amendment religious infringement. Again, however, even assuming that all the assertions as to the existence of plaintiffs' beliefs are true, it is apparent that these interests do not constitute 'deep religious conviction[s], shared by an organized group and intimately related to daily living.'" [223] Based on the apparent contradiction of this rationale, DNA attorneys appealed the Anderson decision to the federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

The appeals process is generally a long and winding road. This was not the case in Badoni v. Higginson. DNA attorneys filed their appeal August 16, 1978, five days after passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. The appeal reasoned that the lower court "in determining the existence of sincere and bona fide religious beliefs on the part of the appellants. . . disregarded the record, [and] applied erroneous and unduly restrictive legal standards." [224] Much of the appeal concerned the lower court's decision regarding Navajo property interests in the monument. Attorneys for the Navajos argued that free exercise claims could be predicated solely on non-economic interests and that title to the land in question was irrelevant. The appeal contended that the Navajo possessed historic and aboriginal claims on the area surrounding Rainbow Bridge, claims denied only by the Treaty of Bosque Redondo and the illegal use of force in removing the Navajos to a reservation. The land surrounding the bridge had been added to the Navajo reservation by executive order on May 17, 1884. It remained part of the Navajo reservation until it was removed by another executive order on November 19, 1892. Given that Navajo cultural tradition maintained aboriginal claims on the bridge, and the federal government had at one time codified this claim in executive order, Navajo attorneys argued there was significant reason for the appellate court to rethink the standards for "property interest." Citing numerous legal precedents, the Navajo appellants maintained that proving actual title was not material to establishing interest in property. [225]

If the Navajo plaintiffs could claim an interest in Rainbow Bridge without establishing title, the appellate court would then weigh the interests of the government against the religious interests of the Navajos. To this end, the appeal indicted the application of Yoder as a standard for testing religious conviction. The appeal contended that even the Supreme Court recognized that the Amish standard was one which few other religions meet. Requiring that any religious claim made under the First Amendment must constitute deep religious conviction and be shared by an organized group and be intimately related to daily living would exclude many beliefs traditionally recognized as religions. Many religious people or groups have eclectic beliefs that are not uniformly shared; very few can make the Amish claim that their beliefs are thoroughly and intimately related to the daily lives of their adherents. In Anderson's application of Yoder, most religions and their adherents would not be protected by the First Amendment. [226] This was a compeling argument. The appeal further contended that the standard in Yoder was more a test of what constituted religious lifestyle than it was a test for determining religious veracity. In Yoder, the Supreme Court never questioned the legitimacy of the Amish religion. The appellants claimed that Yoder was incorrectly applied in Badoni.

The appellate court was not swayed. The Navajos hoped that the national and legislative mood embodied in the AIRFA would favor their case. The AIRFA had been law for two years when the district court announced its decision. But it was not a decision or rationale the Navajos expected. To the issue of property interests in the monument, the appellate court responded that establishing an interest was not necessary as a consideration in evaluating a legitimate free exercise claim. To the issue of whether or not Navajo religion was an established enough practice to be protected under the First Amendment, the court responded favorably. Judge Logan, writing for the appellate court, said that in reviewing Judge Anderson's summary judgement, the court viewed "the facts and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to [the] plaintiffs." Logan subsequently validated most of the Navajo claims regarding their religious interests at the bridge: the existence of sacred springs, the need to pray at the bridge, generational importance of the bridge to Navajos, and the desecrating effect of tourist activity and inundation on Bridge Canyon and its holy environs as a result of allowing Lake Powell waters to enter the monument. Effectively Judge Logan was acknowledging that Navajo religious activity was a protected free exercise of religion, based on the validity of Navajo oral and cultural tradition rather than the existence of any title claim to the land in question. The most surprising part of the ruling was the court's assessment of whether or not Navajo First Amendment rights could be balanced against federal interests in Lake Powell.

One of the government claims in the lower court decision stated that regardless of the veracity of the Navajo religious claims, the government can preclude the free exercise of religion if there are interests of great enough magnitude to justify the infringement. In the case of Rainbow Bridge, the district court paid special attention to the fact that Glen Canyon Dam was one in a chain of water storage projects—which meant that its significance was married to the overall Colorado River Storage Project and could not be evaluated in the vacuum of a religious freedom claim, Judge Logan wrote:

We agree with the trial court that the government's interest in maintaining the capacity of Lake Powell at a level that intrudes into the Monument outweighs plaintiffs' religious interest . . . . [Evidence] shows that the storage capacity of the lake would be cut in half if the surface level were dropped to an elevation necessary to alleviate the complained of infringements. The required reduction would significantly reduce the water available to the Upper Basin States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming from the Colorado River. Such a reduction . . . would among other things limit and reduce the development of water supplies within these States on either a permanent basis or on a limited long-term basis for irrigation purposes, for development of mineral and other natural resources, and for municipal and industrial water supplies. . . . Moreover, it is reasonable to conclude that no action other than reducing the water level would avoid the alleged infringement of plaintiffs' beliefs and practices. In these circumstances we believe the government has shown an interest of a magnitude sufficient to justify the alleged infringements. [227]

Despite the legislative mood favoring the free exercise of Native American religion, and the court's favorable opinion of Navajo religious claims, the court ruled in favor of federal managers. Judge Logan balanced the interests of the Navajos with the interests of the various states involved in the CRSP and on that playing field, religious freedom could not compare with economic prosperity. The Navajos were left with the unpalatable reality that they had proven their case but did not measure up to the interests of the state or federal government.

On specific Navajo claims that NPS policy encouraged increased and reckless visitation by tourists, and the effect of that visitation on Navajo religious practices, the appellate court was less generous. Granting Navajo demands for periodic private access to conduct religious ceremonies or ordering the Park Service to enact regulations designed to force monument visitors into solemn or deferential behavior would constitute federal endorsement of one religion over all others at the monument. This, the court ruled, would clearly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. On this claim, the issue of real property interest also worked to the disadvantage of the Navajos. Judge Logan wrote "we find no basis in the law for ordering the government to exclude the public from public areas to insure privacy during the exercise of First Amendment rights. . . . We do not believe plaintiffs have a constitutional right to have tourists act in a respectful and appreciative manner. . . . Were it otherwise, the Monument would become a government-managed religious shrine." [228]

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

The National Park Service spent much of the 1960s embroiled in numerous legal battles involving Section 1 of the CRSP and protection of Rainbow Bridge (see chapter 6). Between 1960 and 1978, the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the National Park Service were sued four times by three separate groups. Rainbow Bridge and its particular relationship with Lake Powell was a never-ending source of controversy. Despite this atmosphere, the Park Service fostered certain relationships with care and concern. Between 1960 and 1975 the Park Service dedicated significant time and resources to developing a cooperative agreement with the Navajo Nation over fights, access, and commercial management at Lake Powell. The details of those negotiations are discussed in Chapter 7. Suffice to say that Park Service personnel were concerned with ensuring the Nation was treated fairly at Lake Powell while still maintaining a proper degree of visitor access at Rainbow Bridge. The Nation was more than stressed by the process of dealing with Anglo bureaucrats over issues it thought were non-issues. Navajos never understood or agreed with the need to comply with Park Service and Reclamation regulations and requirements concerning concessions and facilities at Lake Powell. The combination of this strained relationship with local Navajos and the reality check imposed by Badoni v. Higginson also compelled NPS to reevaluate its interpretive perceptions of Rainbow Bridge.

The mood of most Navajos after Badoni was subdued. They realized too late that the economic importance of water reclamation was more than their lawyers or prayers could manage. But the Park Service was not immune to the Navajos' needs at Rainbow Bridge. Badoni made it plain to the Park Service how the Navajo Nation felt about Rainbow Bridge. Badoni made public the Navajo belief that Rainbow Bridge was central to their origin story and that prolonged desecration of the bridge would not be tolerated. In internal memos written during the 1974 suit, the Park Service took stock of its secular interpretation of Rainbow Bridge. NPS maintained that its defense in the suit was not directed at Navajo beliefs about Rainbow Bridge. The plaintiffs, as part of the many claims for relief in Badoni, demanded that the Park Service restrict visitor access to the bridge in favor of Navajo religious use. As a matter of legislative mission the National Park Service was compelled to deny this request, adhering to the legal and legislative tenet that Rainbow Bridge was part of the public domain and must remain accessible to the public. Access could not be denied no matter who held it sacred. But the mood at the Park Service changed during the suit.

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

In carrying out its mandate for the conservation and public enjoyment of park lands and their resources, the Service, consistent with each park's legislative history, purpose and management objectives, will develop and execute its programs in a manner that reflects informed awareness, sensitivity, and serious concern for the traditions, cultural values and religious beliefs of Native Americans who have ancestral ties to such lands. [229]

The purpose of SD 78-1 was to revise the Park Service's overall management plan to include Native Americans in significant and official ways. Even if the Park Service knew that the AIRFA was imminent, this was a bold step. The Park Service revamped its own policy to account for issues raised in both Badoni and the eventual passage of the AIRFA. SD 78-1 also directed local park and monument managers to encourage and foster Native American involvement in local policies related to cultural resource management, and planning. SD 78-1 was not ambiguous with its intent: "Where planning, development, or interpretation relate to Native American interests, consultation with Native Americans is very important."

Within two months, the Statement for Management for Rainbow Bridge NM was in flux. In January 1979, the Park Service completed an informal survey of all of its units regarding the potential for religious significance to Native American groups. While the report was cursory, it concluded, "it is generally understood that Rainbow Bridge has a sacred significance to the Navajo." [230] The Statement for Management for Rainbow Bridge was expanded to include discovery and development of the cultural significance of the bridge. By 1979 the Park Service developed and adopted a religious liaison program to meet the legal requirements of the AIRFA. The program appointed special liaisons to help with implementation of the specific tenets of the AIRFA. Consulting religious leaders from every tribe affected by the AIRFA was a key goal in the early 1980s. [231] In 1981 the Park Service completed a draft version of the Native American Relationships Policy (NARP), an extension of the religious liaison program. The Park Service realized that part of its mission, in light of the AIRFA, was to interpret in certain park areas the "cultural heritage of the Native American." The legislative intent of the AIRFA trickled down to Rainbow Bridge in the form of yet another revision to the monument's statement for management. The revised management objective was "to strive to foster and maintain a better cooperative relationship for the use and protection of the national monument with the Navajo Tribe." [232] The Park Service knew it could not remove the waters of Lake Powell from the monument; but, it was willing to accommodate the Navajo Nation to the best of its ability while staying within legal limits.

As plans solidified during the 1980s for equitable management of Lake Powell's resources, the Park Service undertook an ethnographic study project. Pauline Wilson, the American Indian Liaison for Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (NRA), conducted numerous interviews with members of the local Navajo Nation chapters. The interviews were specifically designed to discern the level and type of religious activity engaged in at Rainbow Bridge. Based on these interviews, Wilson determined that Navajos "viewed their religious significance of the Rainbow Bridge as a very private activity." Wilson also noted that "in this situation, the public has impacted the Bridge so much that it has limited the religious activities tremendously since the lake establishment. Therefore, the Navajo People have adjusted to the impact rather than opposing the situation." [233] That lack of opposition did not last much longer.

To cope with the numerous command and control issues at Rainbow Bridge, the Park Service also began working on a General Management Plan (GMP) for the monument. The GMP went through numerous revisions before sufficient cooperative efforts produced the final draft. As a result, the Park Service realized that some of its management efforts made during the previous thirteen years did not address the expanding expectations of Navajos and tourists. More of the administrative details of the GMP are explored in chapter 7. But one of the major tools developed in the GMP was a framework for dealing with the religious issues surrounding Rainbow Bridge. An important part of this plan was limiting the number of visitors to Rainbow Bridge to approximately 400 people at one time (PAOT). [234] This constituted an overall increase in annual visitation but might reduce the maximum daily visitation during peak months. The first draft of the GMP also suggested that everyone who wanted to visit the bridge, including Navajos, should be required to obtain a permit and reservation prior to their visit. The permit proposal met with immediate criticism from both Navajo and Anglo sources. Alan S. Downer, the historic preservation officer for the Navajo Nation, said it was absurd to suggest that Navajos be required to obtain a permit to use something they had always considered sacred and holy. Speaking in the local press, Downer suggested other additions to the GMP: stricter limits on visitation, mandatory Navajo interpreters, and restricted traffic under the bridge. [235] Terri Martin of the National Parks and Conservation Association agreed with Downer, reiterating that the proposed visitation limits in the GMP would definitely result in overcrowding at the bridge and extensive ecological damage. [236] Martin suggested that the result would be "a carnival type atmosphere." [237] The Navajo Nation was certainly opposed to this possibility.

The first draft of the GMP, published in September 1990, was not an adequate response to the multifaceted concerns over Rainbow Bridge. The lack of local input was obvious. To remedy this problem, the Park Service involved the local chapters of the Navajo Nation even more closely than before. Each affected Navajo chapter held planning meetings to express detailed concerns over the GMP. Park Service officials were present at many of these meetings. The various drafts of the GMP that followed these input and planning sessions were significantly different from the first draft. Some of the modifications included limiting visitation during peak season to fewer than 300 PAOT. Revisions also suggested daily time restrictions on visitation, providing tour groups a limited window of four to six hours to see the monument. [238] By February 1992, the most recent draft of the GMP limited visitation to between 40 and 200 PAOT. It also included proposals for a reservation system and a shuttle service that moved people from a contact station outside the mouth of Bridge Canyon to the docks below Rainbow Bridge. [239] These changes represented the management direction most preferred by the Navajo Nation.

By June 1993, the final draft of the General Management Plan was ready. The visitation level was set at 200 people at one time during the peak season. The plan also recommended that NPS interpreters be assigned to all tour boats entering the monument. This part of the GMP had two purposes: to facilitate monument interpretation and to ensure orderly and appropriate ingress and egress at the monument docking facilities. While the GMP allowed for discouragement of visitor access to areas close to the bridge, the plan made no stipulation restricting visitors from approaching the bridge via approved trail access. The plan classified the entire monument a "natural zone." This meant that in addition to the bridge's proposed status as a traditional cultural property, the monument would be managed based on natural resource sensitivity and the potential for negative impacts to extant ecology. The bridge represented the outstanding natural feature subzone; by extension, NPS was to manage the monument based on concerns for the bridge's physical integrity and not just its importance to Native Americans. The final GMP made no attempt to restrict visitor access in deference to Native American use; in fact, the GMP referenced Badoni a number of times to reiterate the Park Service's mission to manage for the benefit of the general public. The final GMP also included an interpretive prospectus that mapped the history of the monument; the area's significance; the monument's cultural and natural resources; and, the history of the area's use coupled with Native American concerns. [240] But even the execution of a management plan would not help the Park Service avoid conflict or controversy in administering the monument.

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

The Park Service responded with deference. There were no attempts made to remove the protesters, and the ceremonies took place without incident. [243] On August 15, four days after the protest began, the Protectors of the Rainbow ended their ceremonies and returned control of the bridge to the Park Service. In a post-occupation press conference, members of Protectors of the Rainbow said they wanted to demonstrate "Navajo sovereignty and to bring a renewed level of spirituality to the people." [244] The protestors also made references to frustrations over their failure to secure tour boat concessions from the Park Service. The Navajo Mountain Chapter of the Navajo Nation denied any affiliation with the protest, as did the Navajo Nation. Regardless, the event illustrated that some Navajos were not willing to watch passively while the bridge was continually over-crowded. The Park Service for its part became even more willing to do what it could to facilitate respect for Navajo beliefs at Rainbow Bridge while still adhering to its own legislative mission and the letter of the law as expressed in Badoni.

In July 1995, the Park Service placed a sign near the bridge asking tourists and visitors not to approach or walk under the bridge. The new signage was part of the requirements of a Programmatic Agreement (PA) signed by the Park Service and five Native American tribes that claimed cultural or spiritual affinity with Rainbow Bridge. The intent was not to physically prevent any visitor from approaching the bridge but to "discourage" such activity. In addition, the Park Service removed references in printed materials to the two historic trails so as to discourage excessive hiking in the region. The PA formalized plans to for a viewing area, located at the trail head. The viewing area was constructed from a natural Kayenta Sandstone platform bordered by small boulder. Rather than pave the trail to the bridge, the Park Service used a pine-based organic hardener to stabilize the trail. The organic hardener would not restrict the movement of Navajo spirits to and from the various under worlds. The one thing the Park Service could not do was require tourists to stay back from the bridge.

How far the Park Service could go in regulating visitor access and activity at a national monument was tested in Wyoming District Court in 1996. In February 1995, NPS managers at Devils Tower National Monument (NM) did two things. First, in their Final Climbing Management Plan (FCMP), they instituted a voluntary ban on climbing during the month of June, "in respect for reverence many American Indians hold for Devils Tower as a sacred site, rock climbers will be asked to voluntarily refrain from climbing on Devils Tower during the culturally significant month of June." In addition, the Park Service, placed signs along access trails to the Tower which indicated the lands off-trail were sacred to Native Americans. The signs asked hikers not to leave the trail. Lastly, NPS decided that if the voluntary ban was not sufficiently successful, it would encourage compliance by not issuing any commercial use licences for guided climbing activity. Facing issues similar to those at Rainbow Bridge, Park Service personnel at Devils Tower NM decided to defer to Native American interests through a dedicated policy of voluntary compliance. [245]

The policy continued through the 1995 season and commercial permits were denied in June 1995. The lawsuit came in March 1996 in Wyoming District Court. In Bear Lodge Multiple Use Association v. Babbitt, climbing guides filed suit based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, arguing that the Park Service's express purpose for restricting commercial and private activity at Devils Tower NM was to promote Native American religion. [246] The Court split in its June 1996 decision. The Court held partly for the plaintiffs, ruling that refusing legitimate commercial activity permits for the purpose of securing private Native American religious access to the Tower was a violation of the Establishment Clause. But the Court also ruled for the Park Service on the constitutionality of their policy of voluntary compliance with not climbing during the month of June and voluntarily refraining from leaving the trails that accessed the Tower. The Court specifically stated:

The Defendants' efforts to fashion a voluntary program whereby climbers are encouraged to show respect for American Indian religious and cultural traditions is both laudable and constitutionally permissible. The Defendants' solicitous concerns for Indian religion and efforts to provide reasonably unfettered access to Indian sacred sites is also in keeping with the American Indian Religious Freedoms Act ("AIRFA"), 42 U.S.C.1996. Yet it must be remembered that the purpose of this act is to ensure that American Indians are afforded the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and was not intended to grant rights to Indians in excess of those guarantees. [247]

The Park Service at Devils Tower NM subsequently modified the FCMP to allow for the Court's ruling, eliminating the ban on commercial climbing permits during June. The Mountain States Legal Fund, litigating on behalf of Bear Lodge, appealed the Court's second order concerning the constitutionality of a voluntary climbing ban. Eventually the Supreme Court refused to hear argument on the case and the Wyoming Court's opinion held in the absence of Supreme Court action. The Park Service had a firm idea of how far it could go to facilitate relations with Native American groups with respect to visitor activity at a national monument.

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