Canyon de Chelly Visitor Pleads Guilty

[L Roebuck]

A Cub Scout exec guilty to illegally entering Ariz. ruins

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. A national Boy Scout executive has been sentenced to a year's probation for illegally entering a northern Arizona archaeological site.

A federal prosecutor says 58-year-old William Steele pleaded guilty Friday to entering canyons at Canyon de Chelly (dih shay) National Monument without a guide and to entering archaeological ruins.

Full Article

[Azurerana]

And what exactly did he *do* there? Just look?
And absorb the vibes, or was there some other malfeasance afoot? If there were some 'bad thing' going on, wouldn't the press have likely reported that as well? It sounds like a territorial thing, not really concern for the resource. And what do Cub Scouts have to do with this? Absolutely nothing, of course.

I'm a little miffed at this report-- Seems like a steep fine for just going someplace on *Public* land-- and National Monuments are public land. I get a bad shiver through my bones every time I hear of something like this--after all, what is to prevent the powers who think they are from keeping us out of all caves? People into groupthink are not poets or artists, or out side folk. . They do not understand (and are actively afraid) of people who can commune with the spirits of a place--and that is a communion which doesn't happen in a tour group of nose-blowing, noisy American tourists.

It really irks me that in the name of protecting a resource, rules are put into place that make any thinking/feeling person not want to go there. Being respectful to Native Americans and their special places is all well and good, but EVERYWHERE is a potential archeological site--EVERYWHERE is a sacred space to someone... the only real frontier is the one inside your head...and who is to say that one's soul may be independent of one's DNA? There are respectful people and non-respectful people, and it has nothing to do with one's biological ancestry.

You know, if they turned the Canyon De Chelly back over to the Natives, probably the first thing they would do would start eco-tours...somewhat like the tribe which charged my friend $500 to go sit on a special mountain in South Dakota by herself all night. I told her I could go sit on a special mountain by myself all night for free.

I hope the trip was worth it, because $1500 was a steep price for a ticket.

[L Roebuck]

azurerana said:

And what exactly did he *do* there? Just look?

Yes it seem " Just Looking " got the guy a year's probation, banned from all Arizona National Parks and a $1,500.00 dollar fine. So it seems " looking "may now be considered a Crime?

Shouldn't they concentrate on prosecuting real criminals?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scouts leader banned from Arizona's national parks
The Associated Press

A national Boy Scouts executive was sentenced to a year's probation and banned from entering all national parks in Arizona for illegally entering an archaeological site considered sacred by Native American, officials said Tuesday.

Article

[Sharon Faulkner]

Shouldn't they concentrate on prosecuting real criminals?

I suspect what they consider the "real" crime is visitors failing to hire one of the $15 per hour guides to enter the canyons legally.

In other recently publicized articles the park service is bemoaning the lack of park visitors and obvious lack of income associated with less tourists over the last several years. You'd think they might be able to put two and two together and come up with a more accurate answer of why people may
not be visiting national parks. Instead of blaming video games for declining visitation, they might consider the restrictions (including age restrictions) that have been placed upon visitors for at least part of the decline.

I guess the bright side of this (assuming there is one) is that if visitation is declining that means they will only be taking tens of thousands of tourists thru caves on park property instead of hundreds of thousands. ;D

[Azurerana]

Turns out the NPS doesn't own the National Monument. The Navajo (Dine) people do, as part of the Navajo Trust Lands. Herbert Hoover made an agreement with them back in 1931 to establish the NM, but they were permitted to live on the property. Which some of them still do. Hence the high fees to hike in the NM, and requirement for the certified guide at $15/hr (minimum 3 hours according to most of the guide services on the web), and going up to $100 for a supervised overnight camping permit, (and 10X that or more for a 3 day or more 'cultural stay').

NPS gets stuck with the law enforcement and 'cultural resouce protection' aspect.

The 'respect' part is just a PR spin on respecting the NPS rules, not necessarily the site, since entrance to other areas apparently can be had for these high fees paid to the Navajo.

Well, I guess everyone needs to make a living somehow. Looks like the fine may just be a wash with some of the 'certified guide fees', though. You apparently have to have a 'group' of Anglos for some of the guides to make it worth their while, or cut your own deal with them--you also need an NPS permit.

Why don't we just give it entirely back to the Navajo, and cut out the middleman?

[Sharon Faulkner]

Welcome to the forum Bill.

Several of us had already figured out that there was more background to the story than media reports were disclosing. Thanks for posting the rest of the story.

Sounds to me like the NPS needs to step back and return the land to Navajo control if that is what they want. Guess that would be a far too simple solution.

[madratdan]

Welcome Bill. It's always refreshing to here the other side of the story.

I have very little respect for the NPS and how they run our parks........... I'd like to raft my own boat down the Grand Canyon someday, and take a group of friends with. ................I could get a trip into Lech easier and quicker, and cheaper too. Talk about a greedy and corrupt group of people in charge of you and me having fun.

[L Roebuck]

Thanks for posting. Nice to hear the other side.

The National Park Service pursuing this type court action just makes me shake my head. By chance do they give Darwin Awards for these type court actions?

In my opinion this court action does not show any 'actual protection of resources' since NO damage to any cultural resources occurred. And for Pete's Sake, the Navajo Guide indicated permission.

I do not understand why they do not have to put up Signs, Fences, or at least have Visible Information available at the Visitors' Center?? I'm not an attorney but it seems the lack of signage, information, etc, might be considered entrapment?

If the Navajos want to manage their own resource I feel they are very capable of doing so and wonder why the National Park Service is not signing the paperwork?

[Brian Roebuck]

Well it is obvious Bill removed what he posted earlier and thus the story does not follow for late comers reading this thread. You can piece together some of the story though and form your own opinions about it all. From what many of us have heard this was a controversial arrest. One would expect that proper warning should be evident to allow prosecution of tresspassing - especially when the US Government is involved. But they do hold all the cards and can get ugly if they want to. I hope that Bill can put this behind him and that people that do not know all the facts will not fall into the trap of judging him right or wrong.

[Azurerana]

pretzlgirl said:

I do not understand why they do not have to put up Signs, Fences, or at least have Visible Information available at the Visitors' Center?? I'm not an attorney but it seems the lack of signage, information, etc, might be considered entrapment?

On a side note: in a different discussion elsewhere after the report came out about NPS wringing their hands over the falling visitation, I actually looked up, and got 19 pages of things which it is illegal to do on a local NPS unit. Ok. They need rules. No problemo. But...is there anywhere those 19 pages of rules (which are buried in a federal judicial circuit document, not anything user friendly) are posted at the site? Nope. Sure. There are things which say Picnic Area, which of course means don't pitch your camp there. But for the most part only 8-10 rules of the 19 pages are anywhere to be seen--and these are things like no glass on the beach, quiet hours 10 p.m to 6 a.m.--not the list of infractions and fines which accompany them.

I commented that our State Park rules and regs ARE posted (in tiny type, of course, but they are there) on showerhouses, in visitor's centers and informational kiosks). Most people don't read them, but they are there, and if you park on the grass, the ranger can take you by the arm and gently point to the place on the wall which says don't do that before you move your car. Almost never is a contrite person prosecuted for an infraction which did no permanent damage. On the other hand, I know of public lands where everything is prohibited unless specifically listed as permitted. I'm watching my blood pressure, so we'll skim past that. Hunters and fishermen? They've got a little regulation book--they hand you one when you buy the license.

One last thing, lest folks think I'm coming down on NPS personnel-- most of the *people* I've met in National Parks are the friendliest, hardest-working (no, field staff don't get paid a lot) and altogether greatest bunch of federal employees I've ever met. A lot of them choose to work within a system that is underfunded and rife with political pressure, (even though it is supposedly civil service). They put up with the ca-ca, because they care about the resource, and truly enjoy showing it off and protecting it for the future. (I take Nevada Barr's word for it that there are some bad apples in every bushel--I've only run into one or two in 40 years of NP visitation.) But the system itself needs an overhaul badly, and this incident shows why.

[guanonoggin]

Dudes,
He should have fought the charges man. It's the principle of the thing! No display of the rules means they don't have much to stand on in court - even if they are the feds. 'Course the Cub Scout dudes may have forced him to plead guilty to keep things hushed up. What a steaming pile o'guano this is!

Bad Karma for the NPS - and they really don't need it...

[John Lovaas]

In case anyone is interested, I still have "bsteele"'s orginal post here at home- I had sent it to a friend(and scoutmaster) who recently visited Canyon de Chelly to get his take on it.

A few quick items-

While Canyon de Chelly is a National Monument, it is not public property. It is Navajo tribal land. A sovereign nation.

The rules for entering Canyon de Chelly are exceedingly and plainly made clear to anyone who visits. The specifics from the NPS website(see below) are beaten into the head of every visitor to the site.

Canyon Driving
Details
To drive on the canyon bottom, a 4-wheel drive vehicle, a Park Service permit and an authorized Navajo guide are required. The fee is $15 an hour for 1 vehicle, $5 an hour for each additional vehicle with a 5-vehicle limit per guide.


Canyon Hiking
$15/hour
Details
Hiking within the canyon requires a Park Service permit and an authorized Navajo guide, except along the 2.5-mile (4-km) White House Ruins Trail. One guide may take up to 15 people for $15 per hour.

The only reason Mr. Steele had to hire a guide is because that is the only way to legally access the canyon.

I'm still curious as to the identity of "bsteele". His post seemed a bit crudely written and unapologetic for someone who might draw a Scouting USA salary in the low 6 figures- the chief executive of Scouting USA makes $600,000/year. I had forwarded "bsteele's" post to Bill Steele, and received no reply. So I still don't really know if "bsteele" is Bill Steele of Scouting USA.

If we want to look at this another way, someone entered a cave without a permit(or permission from the landowner- the Navajo Nation) and got busted for it. As a responsible caver, why is this a bad thing?

John Lovaas

[Azurerana]

It is irrelevant to me if a person works for the BSA or not, and there is no journalistic reason why the NPS dragged that into their news releases except for their own political purposes. Working for the BSA is a job. No more, no less. If he had taken a BSA troop with him--at that point where he worked would have been relevant. I'm still unclear why where the man works is important to anyone except himself.

There also seems to be a dispute whether William Steele had permission. 'bsteele' says he did. NPS says he didn't. Since written permission is *not* required, it's a matter of a man's word, is it not? It is not in dispute that there is a bigger backstory here than just a tourist going into a cave where he was perceived to be breaking the rules by a third party. I don't know about you, John, but I've been in plenty of places and situations in public view in parks, where, though I had permission to be doing what I was, (think about banging on flowstone floors in cave chopping up concrete, or bringing two schoolbus loads of people to a remote cave entrance at 9 pm) where a typical park visitor would have every right to think I was breaking some rule too. Perception vs reality is a slippery thing and it could catch any one of us.

The bottom line is: regardless if the person had or didn't have permission to be in the cave, the incident has been blown out of proportion in the press, for other purposes, especially if no damage was done to the resource. *That* should be the bottom line here. And it obviously isn't.

By the way, if you want park visitors to see the rules, don't post them on the Internet--put them on a sign or brochure at the Visitor's Center. There is no requirement that park visitors need to be Net savvy.

Canyon De Chelly is part of the Navajo(Dine) Trust Lands. Because it is classed as trust land, the federal government has a greater input into its management than it does on open reservation. Even so, the idea that the Navajo (or any Indian tribe) is a sovereign nation is a bit misleading too. They are not sovereign in the same sense, as say, Brazil--more like Puerto Rico. They are freer than the 50 states in their ability to government themselves on the regional and local levels, but they are subject to federal regulation in exchange for certain federally dispensed benefits, since tribal members are also considered US citizens. *This* is part of the backstory of the Canyon De Chelly story.

[John Lovaas]

Jo-

I'm still unclear why where the man works is important to anyone except himself.

The executives of the company I work for are held up to higher standards than the employees. That's part of being in an executive position- greater visibility. A county prosecutor convicted of a DUI will probably get a harsher sentence that many of the people he himself charged with DUI.

And I would expect a director of the NSS or Scouting USA to be pilloried for behavior that their organizations do not support.

Since written permission is *not* required, it's a matter of a man's word, is it not?

Written permission is required, Jo. That's the "a Park Service permit and an authorized Navajo guide are required" part. Permit. Paperwork. Documentation.

the incident has been blown out of proportion in the press, for other purposes, especially if no damage was done to the resource. *That* should be the bottom line here. And it obviously isn't.

Which gets back to my last sentence- somebody entered a cave(and the canyon) without a permit. We presume he caved responsibly. He is still guilty of entering the cave(and canyon) illegally.

If I cave responsibly without a permit, am I innocent? NO. If I go to a permit cave without a copy of the permit, do I expect trouble? YES.

I hope you don't think that MAYBE he had all the necessary permissions, but that his lawyer was unable to demonstrate that in court? Or that he had all the permits, but men in black suits broke into his lawyer's office and the Canyon de Chelly vistor's center and destroyed the evidence? I hope not.

By the way, if you want park visitors to see the rules, don't post them on the Internet--put them on a sign or brochure at the Visitor's Center. There is no requirement that park visitors need to be Net savvy.

I was quoting the website because I am in Illinois. I am unable to takes pictures of the posted information at Canyon de Chelly. My friends who have visited Canyon de Chelly have assured me that there is ample information available to the visitors. They, sadly, did not photograph any informational kiosks and displays. The website text was posted here to illustrate a point.

Canyon De Chelly is part of the Navajo(Dine) Trust Lands. Because it is classed as trust land, the federal government has a greater input into its management than it does on open reservation.

Bully for the coal companies. Bottom line- Canyon de Chelly entry requires permit and guide.

[Azurerana]

We differ quite widely on what we consider responsible and acceptable behavior, John. I don't hold executives to any higher standard than I hold myself. I've seen good ones, and bad ones, ethical ones and crooks. I don't judge people by their positions. The days of trusting a person because they are in the BSA, or the NSS, or they are a minister, or a professor or a policeman or garbage collector are over for me.

I see no point in continuing this diatribe. The man pled guilty. He didn't try to waffle out. I respect him for that. He paid his fine. So why keep hounding him? (I don't believe in putting sex offenders under virtual house arrest for life, either, 'cause they messed up once.) Last time I looked 'we the people' were still the bosses of the federal government, and the NPS part of that said government. I happen not to agree which what happened. I also happen to know (by long experience) that just because the state or feds says something is so-- it ain't necessarily so. There are agency agendas out there which do not always coincide with what they say they are up to.

All this has proven to me is I likely will never be rich enough to visit Canyon De Chelly, because the bottom line here is not resource management, or learning the lessons which a place like that might teach. It's about money, and visitor control and nothing else. And that's sad. It's off my list. Who knows. I might breathe the air there and go to jail for it.

If something says 'you need a guide' does that mean they have to go into the bathroom with you?
We don't know how the guide system works-- but I can just about bet that a Navajo guide showing a person around his tribal land is a whole lot different than a guided walk by an NPS guide with two degrees and a gun. We don't know the facts. We weren't there. We weren't in court. Everything we've heard is secondhand or after the fact. I'm willing to give Mr. Steele the benefit of the doubt. You aren't. Neither mind will be changed, so everything beyond this is a waste of bits.

[Brian Roebuck]

As a scout he showed that by accepting responsibility for his actions he lived up to the ideals of scouting. I suspect he was "courteous, kind, obedient?, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent"! Well everything except the obedient part!

I guess in an effort to make up for his minor obedience issue he employed the "be prepared" scouting rule by carrying his ample checkbook along on the trip! ;D

Merit badges anyone?

[madratdan]

This incident proves Bill is human, that's all. The fact he admitted his mistake and didn't try to weasel out of it, makes me respect him to the fullest. The media dragging in the outside fact he has anything to do with BSA is BS to me and very typical of what our media has become. Anything for a story.........no matter who or what they hurt in the process.

I can't help it.......this is one thread I vote to delete.

[L Roebuck]

jlovaas said:

In case anyone is interested, I still have "bsteele"'s orginal post here at home- I had sent it to a friend(and scoutmaster) who recently visited Canyon de Chelly to get his take on it.
John Lovaas

I'm curious, did you happen to email bsteel about his post on this forum?

[John Lovaas]

Lynn-

"bsteele" didn't have an email address(or any other information) visible in his profile. So I got Bill Steele's contact info from Scouting USA and forwarded the post to him.

Haven't heard back yet.

[L Roebuck]

jlovaas said:

"bsteele" didn't have an email address(or any other information) visible in his profile.

Ok I just wondered since some of the forum members are sometimes plagued by lurkers who read the forum then send flaming emails to the posters. Bad technique, in my opinion, since the forum is the place to reply to forum posts and threads.

I understand forum members not making their email and other info public. And I do recommend all members of the forum 'NOT have their email address visible on the forum due to spammers who occasionally get past the Mods and Admins.

[Dee]

jlovaas said:

If we want to look at this another way, someone entered a cave without a permit(or permission from the landowner- the Navajo Nation) and got busted for it.

I read the post by bsteele too. He said that the Navajo guide he hired suggested he go to the rock shelter. IMHO, it looks like the Navajo Guide gave permission. Open your eyes and you might see they took this innocent occurrence, took advantage of the situation, and nailed that poor chap to the cross!

[John Lovaas]

I read the post by bsteele too. He said that the Navajo guide he hired suggested he go to the rock shelter. IMHO, it looks like the Navajo Guide gave permission. Open your eyes and you might see they took advantage of the situation and nailed the poor chap to the cross.

I guess I have several points to raise here, Dee.

Did Bill Steele write that original post? I don't know. The email was unsigned, and the author never identified himself as Bill Steele. I could create a "bsteele" profile and a "bsteele" email address in a couple of minutes. In addition, "bsteele" deleted his own post. If Bill Steele wanted to put his side of the story here, why would he remove it a few hours after he posted it?

The moderators approve new members here, so they could shed some light as to whether "bsteele" was actualy Bill Steele.

As to the Navajo guide "giving permission"- let me reframe that from a caving standpoint. If I visited a permit cave that required a ranger to accompany me, and the ranger tells me to go ahead and visit the cave on my own the following day, do I take his word as permission? No. I take the whopping fifteen minutes out of my life to fill out the correct paperwork to visit the cave per the regulations.