* Managing Editor, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 2001–02. The author wishes to thank Professor Alfred L. Brophy for his guidance in selecting and developing the topic of this note.
1 Religious Ceremonial Collection of Golden Eaglets from Wupatki National Monument, 66 Fed. Reg. 6516, 6521 (proposed Jan. 22, 2001) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R.  7.101) [hereinafter Wupatki Propsal].
2 Id.
3 Id. at 6517.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 6519.
6 Proclamation No. 1721, 43 Stat. 1977 (1924).
7 See Wupatki National Monument Virtual Visitor Center, at http://www.desertusa. com/wup/index.html (last visited Nov. 11, 2000). While golden eagles are prevalent throughout the American Southwest and West, NPS officials have noted that some of the long-standing nesting sites at Wupatki have been abandoned. See Andrew C. Revkin, U.S. Plan Would Sacrifice Baby Eagles to Hopi Ritual, N.Y. Times, Oct. 29, 2000,  1, at 14. One theory for the declining number of golden eagles at Wupatki is that the large number of tourists visiting the monument disturb the eagles’ nesting. See id.
8 Wupatki National Monument Virtual Visitor Center, at http://www.desertusa.com/ wup/index.html (last visited Nov. 11, 2000).
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Revkin, supra note 7, at 14. “To Hopis, [golden eagles] are brothers to be brought home, raised, fed fresh-killed meat daily and ultimately sacrificed for Home Dance, when the kachinas (Hopi gods) return to their homes on the San Francisco Peaks north of Flagstaff in July.” George Hardeen, Two Tribes, Two Religions, Vie for a Place in the Desert, High Country News, Aug. 5, 1996, at Vol. 28, No. 14, at http://www.hcn.org/1996/ aug05/dir/ReporterTwo_tribes.html (last visited Dec. 5, 2000); see infra Section I.B.
12 See 16 U.S.C.  668 (2000).
13 Revkin, supra note 7, at 14.
14 See Wupatki Proposal, supra note 1, at 6521.
15 See infra Section II for a discussion of National Park Service management approaches.
16 See Matthew Perkins, The Federal Indian Trust Doctrine and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act: Could Application of the Doctrine Alter the Outcome in U.S. v. Hugs, 30 Envtl. L. 701, 705 (2000).
17See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., Bald Eagle Biologue, at http://www.fws.gov/r3pao/ eagle/success/biologue.html (last visited Nov. 11, 2000) [hereinafter Bald Eagle Biologue].
18 Id.
19 16 U.S.C.  668 (2000).
20 Id.
21 See Bald Eagle Biologue, supra note 17.
22 Eagle Protection Act Amendments of 1962, Pub. L. No. 87–884, 76 Stat. 1246 (1962); Bald Eagle Biologue, supra note 17.
23 Bald Eagle Biologue, supra note 17. The golden eagle population in North America was estimated at 100,000 in 1975. See Anthony Ramirez, Die Like an Eagle: Indian Rights v. a National Sanctuary, N.Y. Times, Nov. 19, 2000, 4, at 16. The eagles range throughout the American west from New Mexico to Washington and into southwestern Canada. See U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos, available at http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/ bbs/htmra/h3490ra.html (last visited Dec. 5, 2000).
24 See Bald Eagle Biologue, supra note 17.
25 See 16 U.S.C.  668 (2000).
26 50 C.F.R.  22.22(c)(1) (2000).
27 See 16 U.S.C.  668; United States v. Jim, 888 F. Supp. 1058, 1064 (D. Or. 1995); 50 C.F.R.  22.22(c).
28 See 16 U.S.C.  668.
29 Id.  668a.
30 Id.; see 50 C.F.R.  22.23 (2000).
31 See 16 U.S.C.  668a; see also 50 C.F.R. 22.22.
32 16 U.S.C.  668; see also supra note 8 and associated text.
33 16 U.S.C.  668; see also supra note 8 and associated text.
34 United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734, 745 (1986).
35 See 16 U.S.C.  668.
36 See 50 C.F.R.  22.22.
37 Id..
38 Id.
39 United States v. Jim, 888 F. Supp. 1058, 1060–61 (D. Or. 1995) (explaining the BGEPA permitting process).
40 Id.
41 50 C.F.R.  22.22. See generally Rupert v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 957 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1992).
42 957 F.2d at 35. Appellants were members of a “tribe” organized by Rupert called the “Tribe of the Pahana,” which means “returned white brothers and sisters.” Id. at 33.
43 Id. at 35.
44 Id.
45 Id.
46 50 C.F.R.  22.22(c).
47 Id. Other factors that impact the golden eagle population include direct human actions such as hunting, trapping, poisoning and electrocution, and indirect causes such as collision with power lines and loss of habitat. See United States v. Abeyta, 632 F. Supp. 1301, 1303 (D.N.M. 1986).
48 United States v. Jim, 888 F. Supp. 1058, 1060 (D. Or. 1995); see infra Section I.B. On April 24, 1994, President Clinton, subsequent to meeting with tribal representatives, issued an executive memorandum directing executive departments and agencies to “work cooperatively with tribal governments and to reexamine broadly their practices and procedures to seek opportunities to accommodate Native American religious practices to the fullest extent under the law.” Policy Concerning Distribution of Eagle Feathers for Native American Religious Purposes, 59 Fed. Reg. 22,953, 22,953 (Apr. 24, 1994). The purpose of this directive was to prioritize the distribution of eagle parts and carcasses for Native American religious practices, and to expedite the permit application/approval process. See id.
49 See 16 U.S.C.  668 (2000).
50 See Perkins, supra note 16, at 711.
51 See, e.g., United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734, 736 (1986).
52 See id. at 740.
53 See id. at 736.
54 See United States v. Abeyta, 632 F. Supp. 1301, 1307 (D.N.M. 1986).
55 See Dion, 476 U.S. at 736.
56 See id. at 735; Perkins, supra note 16, at 712.
57 Abeyta, 632 F. Supp. at 1303.
58 Id.
59 Id. at 1305.
60 Id.
61 Id. at 1307.
62 Id.
63 United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734, 735 (1986).
64 See id. at 737.
65 Id. at 745.
66 Id. at 746; see United States v. Abeyta, , 632 F. Supp. 1301, 1307 (D.N.M. 1986).
67 888 F. Supp. 1058 (D. Or. 1995).
68 Id. at 1065; see also City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 536 (1997) (holding that Congress exceeded the scope of its enforcement power when it enacted RFRA to reinstate the compelling governmental interest test abrogated by Employment Div. Dept. of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)). For a discussion on City of Boerne and Smith, see infra Section III.A.
69 Jim, 888 F. Supp. at 1059.
70 Id. at 1062.
71 Id. at 1064–65.
72 Id. at 1065.
73 109 F.3d 1375 (9th Cir. 1997).
74 The Ninth Circuit includes Montana (the situs of Hugs), Oregon (the situs of Jim), and Arizona (the situs of Wupatki National Monument).
75 See Hugs, 109 F.3d at 1379.
76 City of Boerne was ten weeks away from being decided. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).
77 Hugs, 109 F.3d at 1378; see also City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 512; Employment Div. Dept. of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 890 (1990).
78 See 16 U.S.C.  668 (2000).
79 See 50 C.F.R.  22.22(c) (2000).
80 See United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734, 736 (1986); United States v. Jim, 888 F. Supp. 1058, 1064–65 (D. Or. 1995).
81 16 U.S.C.  1 (2000).
82 16 U.S.C.  1a-1 (2000).
83 See National Park Serv., Criteria for Parklands: Resource Topics for Parklands, available at http://www.nps.gov/legacy/criteria.html (last visited Nov. 11, 2000). Of the total acreage overseen by the NPS, 2.5 million acres remain in private ownership. NATIONAL PARK SERV., National Park System Acreage, available at http://www.nps.gov/legacy/acreage.html (last visited Nov. 11, 2000).
84 16 U.S.C.  1 (emphasis added).
85 See Michael A. Mantell & Philip C. Metzger, Managing National Park System Resources: A Handbook on Legal Duties, Opportunities, and Tools 12 (Michael A. Mantell ed., 1990); Robin W. Winks, The National Park Service Act of 1916: “A Contradictory Mandate?,” 74 Denv. U.L. Rev. 575, 575–76 (1997); see also Karen D’Antuono, Note, The National Park Service’s Proposed Ban: A New Approach to Personal Watercraft Use in the National Parks, 27 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 243, 245 (2000).
86 See 16 U.S.C.  1; Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 12; Park system resources include, inter alia, any living resource located within the boundaries of a park area. 16 U.S.C.  19jj(d) (2000).
87 See D’Antuono, supra note 85, at 246.
88 See Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 13; D’Antuono, supra note 85, at 246.
89 See D’Antuono, supra note 85, at 246.
90 See, e.g., 36 C.F.R.  2.2, 2.3 (2000).
91 See Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 13.
92 Id.; see Winks, supra note 85, at 576.
93 See 16 U.S.C.  431 (2000) (authorizing the President to declare national and international monuments and memorials).
94 See Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 13.
95 Id.
96 See id.
97 See Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Potter, 628 F. Supp. 903, 905 (D.D.C. 1986); Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 13.
98 Potter, 628 F. Supp. at 905; Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85 at 13.
99 See Potter, 628 F. Supp. at 905.
100 See id.; Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 13.
101 See ; Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 13; D’Antuono, supra note 85, at 247.
102 See Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 14; D’Antuono, supra note 85, at 247.
103 16 U.S.C.  1a-1 (2000).
104 See id.
105 See id.
106 See id.; Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 15.
107 16 U.S.C.  1a-1.
108 See id.; 16 U.S.C.  19jj(d) (2000).
109 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1; Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 15.
110 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1; Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 15.
111 See 16 U.S.C.  1, 1a-1; Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 15.
112 Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 15 (quoting H. Rep. No. 95–581, at 21).
113 See Mich. United Conservation Clubs v. Lujan, No. L88-165 CA5, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8384, at *4 (W.D. Mich. 1990); Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 15.
114 See 16 U.S.C.  1, 1a-1; Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Potter, 628 F. Supp. 903, 906 (D.D.C. 1986).
115 See 36 C.F.R.  2.2, 2.5 (2000).
116 See 16 U.S.C.  1, 1a-1; Potter, 628 F. Supp. at 906.
117 16 U.S.C.  1, 1a-1.
118 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1; Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 23.
119See Mich. United Conservation Clubs v. Lujan, No. L88-165 CA5, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8384 at *7-*8 (W.D. Mich. 1990); 36 C.F.R.  2.2. Of the more than 320 park areas in existence in 1990, hunting was allowed in 37 and trapping was allowed in only 12. Mich. United Conservation Clubs, 1990 U.S. Dist LEXIS 8384 at *7–*8.
120 36 C.F.R.  2.2 (emphasis added).
121 Id.
122 See Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Potter, 628 F. Supp. 903, 904 (D.D.C. 1986).
123 See id. at 909.
124 Id. at 905–06.
125 See id. at 909.
126 Translation: The expression of one thing suggests the exclusion of all others.
127 Potter, 628 F. Supp. at 912.
128 See id. The findings in Potter were adopted by the Sixth Circuit in Mich. United Conservation Clubs v. Lujan. 949 F.2d 202, 207–08 (6th Cir. 1991); see also 16 U.S.C.  1a-1 (2000); 36 C.F.R.  2.2 (2000).
129 See 16 U.S.C.  3101 (2000).
130 “Subsistence uses” means the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for personal or family consumption. 16 U.S.C.  3113 (2000).
131 See id.  3101.
132 See id.  3118 (2000).
133 See id.
134 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1 (2000).
135 See 16 U.S.C.  3118.
136 16 U.S.C.  3 (2000).
137 Id.
138 See 16 U.S.C.  1 (2000).
139 See id.  1a-1; 3.
140 See 36 C.F.R.  2.5 (2000).
141 Id.
142 Id. Park regulations may also grant the Secretary the discretion to provide for the removal of certain wildlife from specific park areas. 36 C.F.R.  10.1 (2000). For instance, the Secretary may provide for the removal of surplus elk, buffaloes, and bears from Yellowstone National Park, allowing these animals to be taken (alive) by “federal, state, county, and municipal authorities for preserves, zoos, zoological gardens, and parks.” Id.
143 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1, 3.
144 See 36 C.F.R.  2.5(b).
145 Id. 36 C.F.R.  2.5(c) dictates that endangered or threatened species listed under the Endangered Species Act, or similarly identified by the States, shall not be issued permits unless the species cannot be collected outside of the park area and the primary purpose of the collection is to enhance the protection or management of the species. Id.  2.5(c).
146 Id.  2.5(e).
147 See 36 C.F.R.  2.5. Cf. 36 C.F.R.  2.2 (2000).
148 42 U.S.C.  2000bb (2000).
149 Id.  1996 (2000).
150 See, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 512 (1997); Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439, 455 (1988); see also George Linge, Note, Ensuring the Full Freedom of Religion on Public Lands: Devils Tower and the Protection of Indian Sacred Sites, 27 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 307, 314 (2000).
151 See Policy Concerning Distribution of Eagle Feathers for Native American Religious Purposes, 59 Fed. Reg. 22,953 (Apr. 29, 1994); Exec. Order No. 13,175, 65 Fed. Reg. 67,249 (Nov. 6, 2000); Exec. Order No. 13,084, 63 Fed. Reg. 27,655 (May 14, 1998); Exec. Order No. 13,007, 1, 61 Fed. Reg. 26,771 (May 24, 1996).
152 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C.  2000bb; City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 512; Employment Div. Dept. of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 876 (1990).
153 Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 403 (1963). In 1963, the Supreme Court articulated that governmental interference with an individual’s First Amendment rights may occur only if the end served is a “compelling state interest.” Id. This standard was put forth by the Court in Sherbert v. Verner, in which the Court held that South Carolina failed to assert a state interest sufficiently justifying legislation denying unemployment benefits to a Seventh Day Adventist who refused to work on Saturdays. Id. at 408–09.
154 Smith, 494 U.S. at 872.
155 See id.; City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 512.
156 See Smith, 494 U.S. at 885.
157 Id. at 888.
158 Id. at 885.
159 Id. at 888.
160 City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 512; Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (deferring to the discretion of the Oregon legislature to enact a law under which unemployment benefits were denied to two drug rehabilitation counselors who were terminated after they ingested peyote (an illicit hallucinogenic drug) in a Native American religious ceremony).
161 See 42 U.S.C.  2000bb (2000) et seq.; see also Callahan v. Woods, 736 F.2d 1269, 1272 (9th Cir. 1984) (stating that if “the compelling state goal can be accomplished despite the exemption of a particular individual, then a regulation which denies an exemption is not the least restrictive means of furthering the state interest.”).
162 City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 512–13.
163 Id. at 511.
164 Id. at 512.
165 Id.
166 See id. at 513.
167 Id.
168 City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 536.
169 Id. at 535. Justice Kennedy stated, “[w]hen the exercise of religion has been burdened in an incidental way by a law of general application, it does not follow that the persons affected have been burdened any more than other citizens, let alone burdened because of their religious beliefs.” Id.
170 Id.
171 See id. at 534.
172 See 42 U.S.C.  2000bb (2000); City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 512; Employment Div. Dept. of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S.872, 890 (1990).
173 42 U.S.C.  1996 (2000).
174 See id.; Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439, 455 (1988).
175 124 CONG. REC. 21,444, 21,444–45 (1978); see Linge, supra note 150, at 320. AIRFA’s co-sponsor, Representative Morris K. Udall (D-AZ), acknowledged this fact during the bill’s passage. See 124 CONG. REC. at 21,444–45.
176 See Lockhart v. Kenops, 927 F.2d 1028, 1038 (8th Cir. 1991) (holding that AIRFA, as a mere statement of federal policy to protect Native Americans’ exercise of religion, did not confer a cause of action for violation of AIRFA when the Forest Service did not violate AIRFA when it proceeded in land exchange without consulting Native American spiritual leaders); Wilson v. Block, 708 F.2d 735, 745 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
177 See Block, 708 F.2d at 739.
178 Id. at 738.
179 Id. at 745.
180 Id. at 747.
181 Id.
182 Id. (quoting 124 Cong. Rec. 21,444, 21,445 (1978)). Representative Udall stated, “All this . . . resolution says to the Forest Service, to the Park Service, to the managers of public lands is that if there is a place where Indians traditionally congregate to hold one of their rites and ceremonies, let them come on unless there is some overriding reason why they should not.” Id.
183 Policy Concerning Distribution of Eagle Feathers for Native American Religious Purposes, 59 Fed. Reg. 22,953 (Apr. 29, 1994).
184 Exec. Order No. 13,007,  1, 61 Fed. Reg. 26,771 (May 24, 1996).
185 Exec. Order No. 13,084, 63 Fed. Reg. 27,655 (May 14, 1998).
186 Exec. Order No. 13,175, 65 Fed. Reg. 67,249 (Nov. 6, 2000).
187 Policy Concerning Distribution of Eagle Feathers for Native American Religious Purposes, 59 Fed. Reg. at 22,953.
188 61 Fed. Reg. at 26,771.
189 63 Fed. Reg. at 27,655.
190 65 Fed. Reg. at 67,249.
191 Wupatki Proposal, supra note 1, at 6519.
192 Id. at 6521.
193 Id. at 6517.
194 See Anthony Ramirez, supra note 23, at 16.
195 Wupatki Proposal, supra note 1, at 6519.
196 Id.
197 Revkin, supra note 7, at 14.
198 Id. (quoting results from a Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) survey of over forty large parks that showed that over half had already received requests or demands from Native American tribes seeking to collect wildlife from the park areas).
199 36 C.F.R.  2.2 (2000).
200 Id.  2.5.
201 Id. 3.
202 See id. 2.2, 2.5.
203 See supra Section II.B.
204 See 36 C.F.R.  2.2.
205 See 16 U.S.C.  3; 36 C.F.R. 2.2, 2.5.
206 See 36 C.F.R.  2.2.
207 See 16 U.S.C.  3.
208 See 36 C.F.R.  2.5.
209 See Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 21.
210 Id.
211 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1 (2000); see also supra Section II.B.1.
212 See 16 U.S.C.  1 (2000); see also Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 15.
213 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1; Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 15.
214 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1; Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 15.
215 16 U.S.C.  1a-1.
216 See 36 C.F.R.  2.2 (2000).
217 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1.
218 See id.  1.
219 See id.  1a-1.
220 See id. The President may also declare national monuments by public proclamation—as Clavin Coolidge did for Wupatki. 16 U.S.C.  431 (2000); 36 C.F.R. Proc. 1721, 43 Stat. 1977 (1924)
221 See 16 U.S.C.  3101 (20001); see also supra Section II.B.1 for a detailed discussion of the provisions of ANILCA.
222 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1; 36 C.F.R.  2.2 (2000).
223 See Mich. United Conservation Clubs v. Lujan, 949 F.2d 202, 207–08 (6th Cir. 1991).
224 See id.
225 See 16 U.S.C.  1, 1a-1; Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 21.
226 See 16 U.S.C.  3 (2000); 36 C.F.R.  2.5 (2000).
227 16 U.S.C.  1 (2000).
228 See, e.g., 16 U.S.C.  3; 36 C.F.R.  2.3, 10.1; see also 16 U.S.C. 36a (2000) (authorizing the Secretary to promulgate regulations for the disposal of surplus elk, buffalo, bears, and predatory animals at Yellowstone National Park).
229 See 36 C.F.R.  2.5.
230 Id.  2.5(c).
231 Id.; see 16 U.S.C.  1.
232 See 16 U.S.C.  1, 1a-1.
233 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1; Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 23.
234 Wupatki Proposal, supra note 1, at 6521.
235 Id.
236 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1.
237 36 C.F.R. Proc. 1721, 43 Stat. 1977 (1924).
238 Id.
239 See Mich. United Conservation Clubs v. Lujan, 949 F.2d 202, 207–08 (6th Cir. 1991).
240 See Revkin, supra note 7, at 14.
241 Id.
242 See 36 U.S.C.  2.2, 2.5 (2000).
243 See Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 23.
244 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1 (2000).
245 Wupatki Proposal, supra note 1, at 6519.
246 Id. at 6517.
247 See id. at 6517–19.
248 Id. at 6518.
249 Id.
250 Id.
251 Wupatki Proposal, supra note 1, at 6518.
252 Id.
253 See United States v. Hugs, 109 F.3d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir. 1997); United States v. Jim, 888 F. Supp. 1058, 1063 (D. Or. 1995).
254 Wupatki Proposal, supra note 1, at 6518–19.
255 42 U.S.C.  2000bb (2000).
256 Wupatki Proposal, supra note 1, at 6518.
257 Employment Div. Dep’t. of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 888 (1990).
258 Id.
259 Id. at 875.
260 Wupatki Proposal, supra note 1, at 6518.
261 Id.; see 42 U.S.C.  1996 (2000).
262 See 42 U.S.C.  1996.
263 See id.
264 See id.; 124 Cong. Rec. 21,444, 21,445 (1978).
265 Wupatki Proposal, supra note 1, at 6519.
266 Exec. Order No. 13,084, 63 Fed. Reg. 27,655 (May 14, 1998).
267 Wupatki Proposal, supra note 1, at 6519
268 See Exec. Order 13,175 (Nov. 6, 2000); Exec. Order 13,084, 63 Fed. Reg. 27,655 (May 14, 1998); Exec. Order 13,007,  1, 61 Fed. Reg. 26,771 (1996); 59 Fed. Reg. 22,953 (Apr. 29, 1994).
269 Wupatki Proposal, supra note 1, at 6519.
270 16 U.S.C.  1 (2000).
271 See Mantell & Metzger, supra note 85, at 12.
272 Id.
273 See 16 U.S.C.  668a (2000).