09 May 1993 21:40:41

> Hi guys ... I thought I'd type in this article I just read in the
> Eugene (OR) Register-Guard "From Register-Guard and news service
> reports", about the Forest Service regs. The article makes them
> sound pretty ok. So those in the know please let us know what
> *ain't* pretty ok about 'em, ok?
this is exactly what they want you to think. Because if everyone is
not working together to stop this and prevent it from happening again
(proactive) then we will never have any more gatherings.
by the way I will post the letter about the regs from Thomas torrow
morning sprry it has taken so long.

> Here goes [please forgive typos]:
> >From the Eugene, Or., Register-Guard, Saturday, May 8, 1993:
> The U.S. Forest Service has proposed new rules requiring
> equal treatment for large groups of people seeking permits to
> gather in national forests.
> The new rules change the definition of a "group event" to
> avoid discrimination against groups such as the Rainbow Family,
> as well as fringe political or religious organizations. The
> rules also govern distribution of leaflets and other printed material.
> The Rainbow Family, a looosely knit group formed in 1972,
> holds annual gatherings of thousands of people on national forest
> land to celebrate nature and communal living.
> The group held a 1978 gathering in the Umpqua National
> Forest that drew 15,000 members, and 1,000 to 2,000 members met
> for a regional nine-day gathering in June 1991 at an Umpqua
> forest site about 60 miles east of Roseburg.
> The 1991 meeting was opposed by groups and individuals
> who complained that the site, in proposed spotted owl habitat,
> was too sensitive to support such a large gathering.
> But Forest Service officials allowed the event to be
> held, noting that the much larger 1978 gathering hadn't damaged
> the forest.
> Forest Service rules for granting permits had
> discriminated between "recreational" events such as Boy Scout
> gatherings and "special events," such as demonstrations, parades
> "or any activity involving the expression of views."
> A federal court in Texas, ruling for the Rainbow Family,
> in 1988 struck down those rules and the manner in which they were enforced.
> The new rules would require permits for all
> "noncommercial" groups of 25 or more, require officials to say in
> writing why they denied a permit, and provide for quick appeals.
first off the time that they have to deny a permit is not specifted
and therefor it is a would/could cause a problem because
they have to time limit other than "without unreasonable delay"
Pg 26942, Column 1
but never talk about what is reasonable. What I think, you think, and the
USFS may not be the something when it comes to reasonable delay.
> Forest officials could still require that the activities
> not interfere with other activities and not endanger health,
> safety or the environment.
this is the real problem first we have to apply for a permit which we
will not do. Then if we did (which we wont) it would in some unknown
time be denied because we do not satify their concerns about health, etc.

> The rules won't go into effect until after Aug. 4. The
> public may comment on the proposals until then.
the comment ends then but the rule will not go into effect until after
they read all the comments and rework (maybe/ or maybe not) the reg
to reflect the comments.

I urge everyone to read and and decuss it here and in other places.
In the Light


Back to the Top Level: