Re: Where is "paragraph #9"

On Jun 19, 9:45 pm, whistler <whistler...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yeah, no more C-22 , any moron can sign as representing thousands
(millions) when in fact they don't, and in fact have no way to even
possit such to the alleged persons being theoretically represented.- Hide quoted text -

Here is some 'more recent' interesting reading on the subject which
confirms the F.S.'s confusion as to the rationality of someone signing
a contract as to suposedly representing thousands of people (most of
whom are at best aquaintances) (many of whom are unlikeable and
untrustworthy) and being a "contact" at beck and call by F.S. to
somehow be obligated to inform said same and enforce 'some rules' ?
YeaRight! Have your lawyer talk to my lawyer.

From: "David" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "AGR" <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Name recognition
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:54:47 -0400

Mr. Don Palmer, Planning Section Chief, United States Forest Service,
wrote
the following in a command and staff report on the National Rainbow
Family
Gathering, Monongahela National Forest June 10 - July 7, 2005:

Planning Section

* I believe that there is a big difference in managing group sizes of
75-500
and 10,000-20,000 people and that the regulations and permitting
requirements should be reviewed and revised to consider a variety of
group
sizes.

* In my opinion, it is critical to successfully managing any special
uses
permit that the permittee or a designated representative be on-site
and can
be held accountable for permit non-compliance and resource damage.

* It is unrealistic to believe that an adequate environmental
assessment and
consultation can be completed within 48 hours of notification on
groups
sizes of 8,000 -20,000. There is a big difference between evaluating
the
environmental effects of a 200 person family reunion at a campground
and a
8,000 to 20,000 person gathering that covers hundreds or thousands of
acres
and occupies the land for 4-8 weeks.

* If a permitted event continues, agency leaders need to recognize
that the
overall costs are going to increase.

* Based on personal observations and incidents that occurred at this
year's
Rainbow Gathering, I do not believe that it would be safe or
reasonable to
reduce the current level of law enforcement. I would recommend
increasing
the number of mounted unit officers.

* Consider combining Officer and Special Use Administrator
orientation. I
believe this would benefit both functions in gaining a better
understanding
of roles and responsibilities associated with the management of
non-commercial group use gatherings.

* I personally believe that it is very important for resource
specialists,
special use administrators and law enforcement to pair up and work
together
when working inside the gathering area. We need to break down the US
and
THEM (resource/ LEO) that is inferred by gathering participants. It
would
also very beneficial for LEO's who don't come from a natural resource
background to understand the resource concerns and for resource
specialists
and administrators to gain a better understanding of LEI's role and
responsibilities.

Conclusions

I believe that the objectives set for the overall management of the
incident
which was based on the direction in Delegation of Authority were met
by the
Incident Management Team, Forest and cooperating agencies. All law
enforcement, special use administration, and resource protection
operations
were conducted in a safe and efficient manner. Internal and external
communications were outstanding and the Unified Command System worked
extremely well. The permit administration, within the terms and
conditions
of the permit was excellent. Resource concerns/ impacts were mitigated
or
planned for rehabilitation.

Don Palmer
Planning Section Chief

Source of the above information:http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/sites/wva-2005/NIMT_report/plannin...

Mr. Palmer is mentioned at numerous other Web pages, including, but
not
limited to:

Don Palmer
Position: Recreation and Wilderness Program Manager
Education: A.A.S. Recreation Management, Butler College
Experience: 30 years USDA Forest Service primarily in Recreation and
Wilderness Management
Contribution: Recreation, Scenery Management, Trails, and Wilderness
Resources

Source of above information:
Page 4-3, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the 2006 Forest
Plan,
Monongahela National Forest, of which Mr. Palmer helped prepare.http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/mnf/plan_revision/final_plan_feis/Final_EIS/E...

See also:http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/mnf/environmental/nepa_documents/little_beech...
Professional and technical experience in Recreation & Wilderness
Operation,
Management, Planning since 1976

Mapping Social Change: A Visualization Method Used in the Monongahela
National Forest
Authors: Jason M. Siniscalchi a; Chad D. Pierskalla a; Steve W.
Selin a;
Don Palmer b
Affiliations: a Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Resources Program,
Division
of Forestry, West Virginia University. Morgantown, West Virginia; b
USDA
Forest Service. Elkins, West Virginia.

Published in: Society & Natural Resources, Volume 19, Issue 1 January
2006
, pages 71 - 78
Subjects: Business & Management; Human Geography; Planning;
Formats available: HTML (English) : PDF (English)

Abstract: Many communities in and around national forests are
experiencing
social change. It is important for public land managers to keep
abreast of
this change to provide appropriate forest uses while considering
resource
impacts, conflict management, and potential partnerships with local
communities. The social assessment is one tool used to follow
sociodemographic trends, but it can be difficult to wade through the
volumes
of tables and visual displays to make informed management decisions.

To improve decision making, literature suggests presenting information
in a
usable manner, such as the weather (color isopleth) map. By creating
an
index of overall social change and presenting the results in the form
of an
isopleth, social assessments can be made more usable by reducing
multiple
variables into one composite map. A method is described to compute an
overall index and map of social change, followed by a discussion of
management implications, limitations, and avenues of future research.http://informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a725824500~db=all

"Confusion" is right. He doesn't know the distinction between
serving and managing the public. Citizens are not lab rats in social
experiments. Looks like Pavlov's underbelly to me.

Sanity

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where is "paragraph #9"
    ... be held accountable for permit non-compliance and resource damage. ... I believe that the objectives set for the overall management of the ... Incident Management Team, Forest and cooperating agencies. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: dictionary update
    ... University Core Requirements: 33 Credits ... Nat R 1070 Ecology and Renewable Resource Mgmt. ... Forest 4320 Forest Ecology ... Forest 2544 Introduction to Silviculture and Management ...
    (rec.gardens)
  • Re: dictionary update
    ... University Core Requirements: 33 Credits ... Nat R 1070 Ecology and Renewable Resource Mgmt. ... Forest 4320 Forest Ecology ... Forest 2544 Introduction to Silviculture and Management ...
    (rec.gardens)
  • Re: Resource Allocation Issue
    ... etc - of project management are far more important than any software you ... > where all the resource can be identify via a head count. ... >> qualified to do the job, their maximum allocation is 700%. ... >> allocate the Network Services resource to the task at 400%. ...
    (microsoft.public.project)
  • Re: Regional Gatherings and the USFS
    ... Arkansas (working with resource people ahead of time to ... gatherings can utilize the operating plan method. ... wants to do direct action, civil non-violent disobedience, fine. ... SP - who was in town, then met with the deputy forest supervisor and gave the FS ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
Loading