Canyon de Chelly Administrative History

Concessions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.   .   .    .   .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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