Mount Fuji (Japanese icon and revered mountain), Mount Kailas (sacred to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Bons), Mount Olympus (home of the early Greek gods and goddesses), and many other mountains around the world have special significance that should give them a protective shield against damaging development. However, as spiritual and cultural values seem to erode in our increasingly Westernized, con-sumerized world, and short-term-profit development scenarios increasingly prevail, this metaphysical protection is proving to be insufficient. Consequently, it is increasingly important to reinforce the mantle of spiritual and cultural security by secular protection through formal designation as national parks, national monuments, or other kinds of strict protected areas. Moreover, those of outstanding international significance may well be listed as UNESCO World Heritage Natural/Cultural Sites, as was the case with Mount Tongariro in New Zealand. The sacred/profane conflict is well illustrated in the case of the San Francisco Peaks, located just north of Flagstaff, Arizona, in the United States.
Rising from the usually dry high plateau of the American Southwest, 4 mountains thrust skyward with a sharpness of outline in the clear air that gives them a supernatural appearance and enables them to be seen from great distances. They are sacred to most of the Native American peoples of this region. One of them, the San Francisco Peaks, is revered by 13 tribes, including the Navajo, Hopi, Havasupai, Hualapai, Zuni, White Mountain Apache and Yavapai Apache. To the Navajo, the Peaks are the sacred mountain of the west, a key boundary marker and place where ceremonial plants are collected. Its name to them in English translation is “Shining on Top.” To the Hopi, their “Place of Snow on the Very Top” is, for half of the year, the home of the Kachina spirits who bring gentle rains to thirsty corn plants.
Not only are the “Peaks” valued for their spiritual nature, but the mountain “captures” water in the form of both rain and snow due to the orographic effect, and nourishes surrounding lands with streams, springs, and groundwater aquifers. The City of Flagstaff is dependent on this mountain water. Both plant and animal biological diversity are high. The Peaks are different from the surrounding lands of semi-desert and pinyon pine–juniper woodland and savanna, since they bear closed forests of aspens and conifers. It is indeed a special place in a vast natural landscape and ‘spiritscape.’
The San Francisco Peaks are part of the Coconino National Forest that is administered by the US Forest Service. It is listed as a Category VI area on the IUCN/UN List (Managed Resource Protected Area). Over the years, with its mandate for “multiple use,” the Peaks have received a small, rustic ski development (Arizona Snowbowl), a pumice mine (White Vulcan Mine), and some timber harvesting. Despite protest and a lawsuit by several Native American tribes, the ski area was expanded in 1983 to include more trails, 4 lifts, parking, and a lodge. The courts ruled that this did not impede the religious rights guaranteed by the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act, even though it offends Indian beliefs. But, also in the 1980s, Native Americans won a victory over proposed expansion of the pumice mine. The US Department of Interior bought out the mining rights, the mine was closed in 2002, and the site restored.
Late in 2002, however, another threat to the sanctity of the Peaks arose with another proposed expansion of the Snowbowl, which had been suffering from declining snow cover and hence profits. (During 2001–2002 the ski area was open for business only 4 days!) To counter unreliable snowfall, it is proposed to use Flagstaff's wastewater to make artificial snow. Signs would be posted, advising people not to eat the snow. Aside from the further enlargement of the ski development, to bring it to the edge of a designated Kachina Wilderness Zone, the use of wastewater is a particular anathema to the Native Americans. Thirteen tribes have united in a “Save the Peaks Coalition” and have been joined by some environmental NGOs, especially the Sierra Club. In April 2005 the Forest Service announced its “finding” in favor of the expansion proposal, despite 2 years of negotiation with and petitions from the Coalition.
Of particular concern to the Coalition is the use of Flagstaff's treated sewage water on this sacred mountain. The Hopi are afraid that putting wastewater (not all contaminants such as hormonal compounds and antibiotics are removed by treatment) may cause the Kachinas to abandon their home in the mountain. In an appeal to the United Nations, Navajo President Joe Shirley stated: “The hearts of my people will again be broken, their health will inevitably suffer, and we will again witness the continued erosion of one of the oldest indigenous cultures in North America at the hands of the US Government.”
The Coalition in August 2005 brought a legal court appeal against the Forest Service decision. In January 2006, a District Court Judge denied the appeal, apparently feeling that the economic interests of Arizona Snowbowl Resorts was more of a priority than the beliefs of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans. This decision was appealed to a Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in September, but as of this writing, no decision has been issued.
Even if the decision is favorable to the Native American case, it is probable that the US Government will appeal to a higher court, given that the present political power is in the hands of neo-conservatives who favor economic development above all else. If the Coalition is allowed to prevail, this landmark case could affect the management of very many areas of public lands where Native Americans have sites of special spiritual value. This is a great fear in government land management agencies. But perhaps it is high time that those making policy and management decisions give more recognition to the inspirational values, power sources, healing powers, and sacredness of mountains, and less to short-term and short-sighted profits.
Thus, it might be well to strengthen official, secular protection for other sites where such current conflicts exist—a road and ski center development on Mount Olympus in Greece; uncontrolled tourism development at Machu Picchu in Peru; a proposed road on the pilgrimage route around Mount Kailas in Tibet; additional observatory infrastructure on Mauna Kea in Hawaii; tourist climbing of Uluru in Australia; and many others. The metaphysical and non-material values of mountains need greater consideration and protection when humans propose to exploit nature in lofty and special places.
