Court Won't Nix Rock-Climbing Limits
WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Supreme Court today let the National Park Service
discourage rock-climbing on the Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming
when American Indians hold sacred ceremonies at the 600-foot butte. The court
rejected an unusual church-state case in which rock climbers argued they
should have legal standing to challenge the Park Service policy. Devils Tower
in northeastern Wyoming became the first national monument in 1906 by
proclamation of President Theodore Roosevelt.

This is not that big a deal. The closure is only during june(a very sacred month for the Sioux), and is voluntary. I don{t really see much difference between this closure, and the other closures for raptor nesting.

I was a local in the area when the closure went into effect, and most people are fine with the closure.

The lawsuit was brought about by a couple of guides who deserved to lose-they were very arrogant and intolerant about the situation. When climbing at an area like devils tower that has been sacred to a people for hundreds of years, some respect must be shown.

Devils Tower is some of my favorite clmbing in the world, but please respect the voluntary closure. When climbing there, do not disturb prayer bundles and try to maintain a low profile.

Andrew

I should just keep my mouth shut, but I can't. I have to respectfully disagree with Andrew's position on this. It is a big deal. I see this "voluntary closure" recently supported by the High Courts, as a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.

Sacred to the Sioux for hundreds of years? Could be you're right. But I see the granting of a closure of a sacred area as a poor attempt at any sort of reparation for past transgressions, if that's what it is.

I refuse to let religion play any part in any public policy, which is what it is doing here. That the group is Native American and that their rights have been trampled on in the past, is no reason to violate the separation of church and state. The Establishment Clause is based on the twin concepts that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The first part of this ammendment has repeatedly been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that religious groups cannot receive preferential treatment in any way.

Unfortunately, that is what this ruling does. It grants special favors to one group (Sioux) over another (climbers) based on one factor: religion.

Personally I agree with Andrew that climbers should maintain a low profile, and that prayer bundles should not be disturbed. And I'll probably respect the wishes of the Park Service and not visit DT in June. That's out of respect and courtesy on a personal level. My opposition is not out of a hatred or dislike for the Sioux or their religion. But when the Supreme Court gives legal weight to the Park Service's "voluntary request" I see the First Amendment getting trampled on. And that troubles me.

The guides that challenged this ruling where not "arrogant" in my opinion, though I have no personal knowledge of them. But were simply attempting to protect their livelihood, which they saw being limited due to a federal protection of religion, which they felt, and I agree, tramples on the First Amendment.

'Nuff said? Bottom line is I hardly have enough money to get to the Gunks every weekend, so I don't think I'll be out to Devil's Tower any time soon, but for those of you who do go... enjoy and respect. :)
Ian

Ladies & Gentlemen:
Sorry to do this, but I must point out a couple of mis-conceptions in the prior posts. First, the Supreme Court DID NOT "give legal weight to the Park Sevice's 'voluntary request'". What occurred is that the Court denied cert. (i.e. refused to review the decision rendered by the lower courts) A denial of cert. simply means that the court did not feel that the issue was of such great public importance to warrant review. Second, I'd suggest that everyone review the 10th Circuit's opinion in this case. Simply, the opinion held that the plaintiff's had no standing since they had failed to prove harm. The court made no ruling on the constitutionality of the voluntary closure. The opinion can be found at www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-8021.htm
Lastly, as a personal comment, I've alwasy found it puzzeling that the Lakota people claim that the Black Hills area as being their spiritual home, yet they did not immigrate to the Hills until the 1700's. (see The Indian Heritage of America by Alvin Josephy)
Jeff Holt

Hey no fair, you're using actual research and carefully documented information in order to make some valid points! You make my half baked opinions and simple conjectures stemming from an emotionally charged love of the 1st Amendment, seem like half baked opinions and simple conjectures. I cry foul!!

OK Ian. Go to the line for a one and one.
Jeff

Just something i heard when i lived in wyoming. a climbing buddy of mine grew up in Hewlett(where DT is located) his father was also raised there. i brought this issue up with his father and he didn't understand the closure since he has never saw a Native American from Hewlett. I don’t know I’m not from there.

If you ask me for that month there are many other places to go climbing at. ciao freak