Canyon de Chelly Administrative History

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.