Darrell Gardner, who calls himself a "mixed-blood," said that although he is not enrolled in a federally recognized tribe, the U.S. Justice Department contracted with him for 15 years to conduct religious services in sweat lodges in state prisons in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Texas and Canada. Based on religious grounds, Gardner had permission to possess and use eagle feathers in sweat lodges that were often frequented by inmates who were not federally recognized as "Indians."

"As far as I know, we can use the feathers in our religion. We use feathers like a protection, just like Christians put a statue of Christ or Mary on the dashboard . . . it kind of states who we are," said Gardner, 72, of Whiterocks.

He went to court about two decades ago when he had an eagle confiscated. A federal court judge dismissed the case, but Gardner never got the bird back. He said since that time he's never had a problem — until the recent episode involving his daughter-in-law, Terresa.

"As far as the feathers, no one has given me any trouble," said Darrell Gardner. "Everyone we know knows it is part of our religion. They have every right in the world to have them . . . the guy just reached in and took them; he never gave a citation. It is theft as far as I am concerned. If he had issued a citation we could have gone to court and got it taken care of."

However, Neola resident Ray Hardman knows first-hand that litigation provides more questions than answers. Hardman, a non-Indian, had been given the sacred eagle feathers in 1995 from a Hopi Indian who was his son's godfather. By that time, he had used eagle feathers as part of his form of worship for 15 years. In 1996, his eagle feathers were confiscated by Ute Tribe Fish and Game.

For the past eight years his case has gone from U.S. District Court to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which remanded it back to the federal court in Salt Lake City. Along the way, two similar cases regarding the possession of eagle feathers were consolidated with his.

"It all pertains to religion. It was remanded back to federal court because they failed to provide proof that it (confiscating the feathers) was the least restrictive means under the Freedom of Religious Rights Act," said Hardman. "What we are trying to clarify and substantiate is . . . there are not that many practitioners of the Native American religion, so why can't the ones under the Freedom of Religion Act practice it?"

Hardman represented himself in court when his case was first filed. Now he has an attorney, and prosecutors in the case are out of Washington, D.C., he said. He said the court has yet to set a date to hear his case.

"There's kind of a Catch-22 here," Hardman said. "The law says you have to be an enrolled member, and the court says another thing."

---

E-mail: ubsnews@ubtanet.com