Devil's Tower Access
WE WON! I THINK
Restrictions to Public Lands to Respect the Religious Rights of Others Should be on a Voluntary Basis. Having purchased a raffle ticket at the beginning of the evening, I stood anxiously waiting to hear if I had won one of the great prizes: a Mountainsmith backpack, Black Diamond climbing harness, a T-shirt with a hip logo, etc. One by one the great prizes were awarded to the lucky ticket holder. The speaker announced the next prize, a complimentary body massage by “Bob”. Everyone looked around to find “Bob”. In the back of the crowd stood a scary looking individual with his hand raised. There was a pause as everyone stood there praying that their winning ticket would not be called....
“Tony Buettner” she announced.
The crowd issued a collective sigh of relief and immediatly began looking for the unlucky soul. The announcer spotted me cowering behind the others and asked me to come up to claim my prize. I turned to my climbing partner Chris, and whispered, “ I just won a massage from a dude.” His reply was perfect, “You Won!....I think.”
June 8, 1996: U.S. District Court Judge William Downes issues a preliminary injunction that prevents the Parks Service from prohibiting guided climbing during the month of June at Devils Tower in Wyoming. By the look of things, we won..... I think.
The decision by the courts to deny the Parks Service authority to restrict access to an area that our Native Americans consider sacred was a bitter sweet victory. The issue regarding Devils Tower and access to it can traced back to 1995 when the Parks Service instituted a plan that encouraged climbers to steer clear of the rock formation during the month of June to show respect for the Sioux, Cheyenne and other groups who believe it is infused with sacred power and celebrate the summer solstice at its base. Later in 1996 the agency went a step farther by banning guided tours at Devil’s Tower during that same month. This decision prompted a lawsuit by local climbing guide, Andy Petefish (owner of Tower Guides) and other members of the Bear Lodge Multiple Use Association in March of 1996, asking the federal government to annul the entire climbing management plan charging that the ban on guiding and “voluntary closure” violated the Constitutional separation of church and state by prohibiting climbing activities to accommodate Native American religious ceremonies. Judge Downes agreed and issued the injunction preventing the Parks service from implementing the plan.
Although the lawsuit by Petefish prevented government enforced restrictions, his strong opinions in the June issue of Outside Magazine, in my view, were extremely irresponsible; “I don’t want to understand Indian religion and I don’t have to... the whole notion of paying the Indians back through sympathy is idiotic...and...all these land issues were resolved a long time ago.” These comments may have caused irreversible damage to the good intentions and cooperative spirit of climbing representatives like The Access Fund, and is not consistent with the respectful view of the climbing masses. A more accurate view of the attitude by the majority of climbing society was expressed by Tedd Stymiest, manager of Adventure Sport (another guide service at Devils Tower); “After all, we regard rocks in an almost spiritual way....we should be able to show compassion for another group that feels the same way.” The voluntary and wide spread respect that the climbing community has shown towards Native Americans and the places they hold sacred should be the focus of any campaign to restrict activities at those sites.
The Access Fund, an organization dedicated to maintaining access and freedom for recreational climbing, did not support the lawsuit for several reasons stating, “The access Fund has invested significant time and resources in preparation of the ‘Climbing Management Plan for Devils Tower’....and believed that asking climbers to voluntarily refrain from climbing on the Tower during traditional Indian ceremonial periods was consistent with the Access Funds policy of developing cooperative, non-regulatory solutions to competing uses of public lands.” They also believe that the precedent affirmed by the Climbing Plan (that climbers would voluntarily make changes in their visitation and behavior patterns to support broader management objectives) is an excellent one... and that the interests of the climbing community are not well served by the second complaint of the lawsuit, which asks courts to overturn the entire Climbing Plan. They believe climbers’ long term interests would be better served by building a positive public image, being seen as cooperative by influential interest groups such as Native Americans.
In December of 1996 the National Parks Service issued an addendum to the “Final Climbing Manage Plan for Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming” in which it modified the climbing plan by removing the decision not to issue permits for guiding in June, and changing the time line for the plans’ “determination of success” to 1999. The Access Funds dedication towards educating climbers and encouraging the respect due our Native American neighbors is working. Perhaps Andy Petefish and others with his views will come to realize the long term benefits of respecting all people who share our love of mother nature and her wonders. Petefish was the only local guide who opposed the voluntary restrictions imposed by the climbing plan and hopefully we will not encounter the same attitudes towards other access issues now active throughout the country.
It is important to point out that Native Americans are not the only people involved in limiting access to public lands. In the winter of 1995, the National Parks service upheld a ban on virtually all public access to Idaho’s “Twin Sisters,” a formation of rocks in the City of Rocks National Reserve. The call for this ban was based on the argument of a few history buffs, who argued that “...the presence of climbers and other visitors around the Twin Sisters degrade the feeling and association of the historic scene.” The twin Sisters has significant historic, geologic, and recreational values. It was a landmark along the California Trail in the mid-1800’s. The Access Fund is currently involved in a campaign to reverse this decision and implement a Climbing Management Plan similar to that of Devils Tower.
Perhaps The Access Fund and Mr. Petefish can learn something from one another. A Lawsuit against the government agencies responsible for instituting these closures with out insulting the organizations who request limitations on such sites should be the way to go. Treat all people with the respect they deserve. Reach compromise to satisfy all legitimate requests from those who seek some sort of soul search from these areas. Any organization which seeks to restrict access to public lands should recognize that the law prevents such restrictions and the best that they can hope for is the cooperation of those who wish to share these valuable resources. We, on the other hand, who wish to continue with our activities free from government enforced restrictions should learn to respect the wishes of those who view these sites as something other than a vertical rock to climb or potential wilderness experience by voluntarily restricting our access to such areas thru compromise such as every other day usage or a set week(s) of non-use. Voluntary restrictions and cooperation by all of us may prevent the government from laying it’s already too-heavy hand on our right to enjoy the lands which surround us.
Let us play in peace.
