hippiestead
06-16-2007, 09:03 PM
This just in folks!!! There are 2 possible sites! Here are forwards from SP:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Stephen
> Subject: Re: Fwd: fee use area
> To: Garrick Beck
> CC: Tom Florich <tflorich@fs.fed.us (tflorich@fs.fed.us)>
No-
We have a usable site-
Hopefully, Tom and his team will get with v and crew
that will be in the specific area tomorrow afternoon-
I will ask him to notify Tom -even if premature- and
let him know what's up. Would not be out of way for
the Tree Frogs.
Some concern about Tree Pigs present at last walk
through-
They -leo's- can wait until resource have walled with
the folks-
I'm glad we do not have to argue about Cole Fork and
Rock Crk, and I'm not willing -but will- to argue
about McClellen-
It might have worked if it were still closed to the
public, and our presence would have served a benefit
to the land and clean-up blah, blah-
We have what will work nicely, and don't have to argue
about the containment pond referred to as lakes.
--- Garrick Beck wrote:
> this could get passed around,
>
> g
>
>
> --- Garrick Beck wrote:
>
> > this could get passed around,
> >
> > g
> >
> >
> > My inquiry:
> >
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > I have been in a discussion with a few of the
> scouts
> > for the Rainbow
> > about fee use areas. Also I had a very thorough
> > conversation (and set
> > of emails) with Supervisor Rose on the same topic.
> > Now, this late in
> > the process, scouts are re-asking me to re-visit
> > this question. I don't
> > know if this is realistic at all, but I am trying
> to
> > follow up on their
> > requests. Are there methods for working around or
> > within the fee
> > structure whereby a large user group could enter
> > people for free and
> > then do some in-kind trade of -- for example -
> > hazard tree or burnt
> > tree removal -- in exchange for entrance dues?
> >
> > I know this is a question from left field, but if
> > you could get me some
> > kind of feedback I'd be very appreciative.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Garrick Beck
> >
> > Tom Smeltzer's reply:
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: Tom G Smeltzer <tsmeltzer@fs.fed.us (tsmeltzer@fs.fed.us)>
> > > Date: June 15, 2007 3:58:57 PM MDT
> > > To: Garrick Beck
> > > Cc: nrose@fs.fed.us (nrose@fs.fed.us), jyondoh@fs.fed.us (jyondoh@fs.fed.us)
> > > Subject: Re: fee use area
> > >
> > > Mr. Beck,
> > >
> > > In earlier messages, Nancy Rose, Forest
> > Supervisor, made it clear she
> > > was not supportive of waiving fees for the use
> of
> > the developed
> > > recreation sites at Lake McClellan. Fees
> > generated on the site are
> > > the primary way services provided by the Forest
> > Service at Lake
> > > McClellan are paid for. Also she found that
> Lake
> > McClellan was
> > > unsuitable for a national gathering because of
> the
> > numerous safety
> > > issues at the site including hazard trees.
> Nancy
> > offered to review
> > > proposals to mitigate these hazards while
> stating
> > that professional
> > > and safety standards would have to be met. She
> > expressed her concerns
> > > about volunteers without appropriate training,
> > certification, and
> > > protective equipment being involved in dangerous
> > work such as hazard
> > > tree falling. Nancy also stated all parties
> > involved would need to
> > > agree to a detailed work plan. No proposals
> have
> > been received by the
> > > Forest Service. Any mitigation work would have
> to
> > had been completed
> > > before the National Gathering begins. Since
> > gatherers could arrive at
> > > Lake McClellan as early as next week, there is
> no
> > time left to develop
> > > and implement a hazard mitigation plan. The
> > Forest Service will not
> > > waive the developed site fees or authorize the
> > removal of hazard trees
> > > from the site. If you have additional questions
> > or concerns, feel
> > > free to contact me.
> > > *****************************************
> > > Tom Smeltzer
> > > District Ranger
> > > Black Kettle and McClellan Creek
> > > National Grasslands
> > > 580-497-2143 office
> > > *****************************************
> > >
> > > -----Garrick Beck wrote:
> -----
> > >
> > > To: tsmeltzer@fs.fed.us (tsmeltzer@fs.fed.us)
> > > From: Garrick Beck <garrick@nets.com (garrick@nets.com)>
> > > Date: 06/14/2007 07:45PM
> > > Subject: fee use area
> > >
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > I have been in a discussion with a few of the
> > scouts for the Rainbow
> > > about fee use areas. Also I had a very thorough
> > conversation (and set
> > > of emails) with Supervisor Rose on the same
> > topic. Now, this late in
> > > the process, scouts are re-asking me to re-visit
> > this question. I don't
> > > know if this is realistic at all, but I am
> trying
> > to follow up on their
> > > requests. Are there methods for working around
> or
> > within the fee
> > > structure whereby a large user group could enter
> > people for free and
> > > then do some in-kind trade of -- for example -
> > hazard tree or burnt
> > > tree removal -- in exchange for entrance dues?
> > >
> > > I know this is a question from left field, but
> if
> > you could get me some
> > > kind of feedback I'd be very appreciative.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > Garrick Beck
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> Stephen
>
> "Let the truth be known and let no one hide what it
> is that is truly in
> their heart or where they are coming from in this
> time, now. Let all the People Know who we are and
> that we are sincere in our walk of Peace. We will
> not be denied the Peace and Love on this planet that
> is our destiny, it is coming to pass and all we need
> to do is accept this truth as the greatest truth of
> all." Coyote
>
> “Participants in an egalitarian peaceable assembly
> can not be forced to conform or structure themselves
> into an organization to suit bureaucratic
> convenience; that is, it is the people's government,
> not the government's people. I am a child of God,
> not a creature of the State! Natural and vested
> rights held by individuals cannot be lawfully
> annulled by the subterfuge of guilt by association,
> guilt by proximity, nor can such an annulment of
> rights be justified by any other sophistry
> whatsoever.” --Sanity Clause RE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Stephen
> Subject: Re: Fwd: fee use area
> To: Garrick Beck
> CC: Tom Florich <tflorich@fs.fed.us (tflorich@fs.fed.us)>
No-
We have a usable site-
Hopefully, Tom and his team will get with v and crew
that will be in the specific area tomorrow afternoon-
I will ask him to notify Tom -even if premature- and
let him know what's up. Would not be out of way for
the Tree Frogs.
Some concern about Tree Pigs present at last walk
through-
They -leo's- can wait until resource have walled with
the folks-
I'm glad we do not have to argue about Cole Fork and
Rock Crk, and I'm not willing -but will- to argue
about McClellen-
It might have worked if it were still closed to the
public, and our presence would have served a benefit
to the land and clean-up blah, blah-
We have what will work nicely, and don't have to argue
about the containment pond referred to as lakes.
--- Garrick Beck wrote:
> this could get passed around,
>
> g
>
>
> --- Garrick Beck wrote:
>
> > this could get passed around,
> >
> > g
> >
> >
> > My inquiry:
> >
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > I have been in a discussion with a few of the
> scouts
> > for the Rainbow
> > about fee use areas. Also I had a very thorough
> > conversation (and set
> > of emails) with Supervisor Rose on the same topic.
> > Now, this late in
> > the process, scouts are re-asking me to re-visit
> > this question. I don't
> > know if this is realistic at all, but I am trying
> to
> > follow up on their
> > requests. Are there methods for working around or
> > within the fee
> > structure whereby a large user group could enter
> > people for free and
> > then do some in-kind trade of -- for example -
> > hazard tree or burnt
> > tree removal -- in exchange for entrance dues?
> >
> > I know this is a question from left field, but if
> > you could get me some
> > kind of feedback I'd be very appreciative.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Garrick Beck
> >
> > Tom Smeltzer's reply:
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: Tom G Smeltzer <tsmeltzer@fs.fed.us (tsmeltzer@fs.fed.us)>
> > > Date: June 15, 2007 3:58:57 PM MDT
> > > To: Garrick Beck
> > > Cc: nrose@fs.fed.us (nrose@fs.fed.us), jyondoh@fs.fed.us (jyondoh@fs.fed.us)
> > > Subject: Re: fee use area
> > >
> > > Mr. Beck,
> > >
> > > In earlier messages, Nancy Rose, Forest
> > Supervisor, made it clear she
> > > was not supportive of waiving fees for the use
> of
> > the developed
> > > recreation sites at Lake McClellan. Fees
> > generated on the site are
> > > the primary way services provided by the Forest
> > Service at Lake
> > > McClellan are paid for. Also she found that
> Lake
> > McClellan was
> > > unsuitable for a national gathering because of
> the
> > numerous safety
> > > issues at the site including hazard trees.
> Nancy
> > offered to review
> > > proposals to mitigate these hazards while
> stating
> > that professional
> > > and safety standards would have to be met. She
> > expressed her concerns
> > > about volunteers without appropriate training,
> > certification, and
> > > protective equipment being involved in dangerous
> > work such as hazard
> > > tree falling. Nancy also stated all parties
> > involved would need to
> > > agree to a detailed work plan. No proposals
> have
> > been received by the
> > > Forest Service. Any mitigation work would have
> to
> > had been completed
> > > before the National Gathering begins. Since
> > gatherers could arrive at
> > > Lake McClellan as early as next week, there is
> no
> > time left to develop
> > > and implement a hazard mitigation plan. The
> > Forest Service will not
> > > waive the developed site fees or authorize the
> > removal of hazard trees
> > > from the site. If you have additional questions
> > or concerns, feel
> > > free to contact me.
> > > *****************************************
> > > Tom Smeltzer
> > > District Ranger
> > > Black Kettle and McClellan Creek
> > > National Grasslands
> > > 580-497-2143 office
> > > *****************************************
> > >
> > > -----Garrick Beck wrote:
> -----
> > >
> > > To: tsmeltzer@fs.fed.us (tsmeltzer@fs.fed.us)
> > > From: Garrick Beck <garrick@nets.com (garrick@nets.com)>
> > > Date: 06/14/2007 07:45PM
> > > Subject: fee use area
> > >
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > I have been in a discussion with a few of the
> > scouts for the Rainbow
> > > about fee use areas. Also I had a very thorough
> > conversation (and set
> > > of emails) with Supervisor Rose on the same
> > topic. Now, this late in
> > > the process, scouts are re-asking me to re-visit
> > this question. I don't
> > > know if this is realistic at all, but I am
> trying
> > to follow up on their
> > > requests. Are there methods for working around
> or
> > within the fee
> > > structure whereby a large user group could enter
> > people for free and
> > > then do some in-kind trade of -- for example -
> > hazard tree or burnt
> > > tree removal -- in exchange for entrance dues?
> > >
> > > I know this is a question from left field, but
> if
> > you could get me some
> > > kind of feedback I'd be very appreciative.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > Garrick Beck
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> Stephen
>
> "Let the truth be known and let no one hide what it
> is that is truly in
> their heart or where they are coming from in this
> time, now. Let all the People Know who we are and
> that we are sincere in our walk of Peace. We will
> not be denied the Peace and Love on this planet that
> is our destiny, it is coming to pass and all we need
> to do is accept this truth as the greatest truth of
> all." Coyote
>
> “Participants in an egalitarian peaceable assembly
> can not be forced to conform or structure themselves
> into an organization to suit bureaucratic
> convenience; that is, it is the people's government,
> not the government's people. I am a child of God,
> not a creature of the State! Natural and vested
> rights held by individuals cannot be lawfully
> annulled by the subterfuge of guilt by association,
> guilt by proximity, nor can such an annulment of
> rights be justified by any other sophistry
> whatsoever.” --Sanity Clause RE