I've attached a report of what has been going on with the regs. Will mail
a list of congress persons for you to contact soon. Please send snail-mail
address if you want printed material.m
stein / %
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------A
REPORT ON FOREST SERVICE ANTI-GATHERING REGULATIONS
Between July 8 and August 4, 1993 people from all parts of the
country came to Washington, D.C. They came to oppose U.S.
Forest Service regulations that, by permit requirements, would
transform freedom of assembly on public lands into a crime.
In all perhaps 200 or 300 people visited D.C. 70 people were in
town at any one time. Approximately 20 people remained in D.C.
throughout the entire period to focus energy on opposing the
regulation. Most of those folks are still here.
The public comment period on the proposed Forest Service
regulations ended on August 4, 1993.
Up until that point the main focus had been on (1) lobbying
efforts; working to get support both from public servants on
capitol hill, and (2) contacting groups who have an interest in
the Forest Service's most serious attack on the Constitution yet.
A draft of a "Dear Colleague" letter was submitted to those
legislators who were found to be sympathetic during our initial
lobbying meetings with them. They were asked to sign and send
copies of this letter to their colleagues on and off Capitol
Hill. A point-by-point assessment and rebuttal to the
objectionable parts of the regulations accompanied that letter.
No "Dear Colleague" letters have been signed yet. However,
Congress is in recess until September, maybe a Dear Colleage
letter will be signed then.
Brooks Preston, aide to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), initially
expressed enthusiastic support for our position, and expressed
particular concern about the literature prohibition. However, on
August 7th Brooks delivered the only clear congressional
response, saying that Senator Leahy considers Rainbow to be a
"fringe group," and didn't want to appear to be confrontational
toward the Forest Service on this issue. Leahy's attitude is
particularly disappointing because he carries a lot of weight in
Congress, and is well known for his liberal stand on most issues.
Our lobbying efforts were focused primarily on people who sit on
the Forest Service oversight committees. The Civil and
Constitutional Rights Subcommittees were not heavily targeted.
Although most of the aides that we spoke with initially expressed
sympathy for our cause, in the final analysis, no congressmen
made any effort in our behalf. PRESSURE FROM CONSTITUENTS AT
HOME IS ESSENTIAL.
Groups thought to have some interest in this issue, mostly
lawyers, civil rights and environmental groups were also
contacted. With the exception of two letters from different ACLU
chapters, there was no response. More contact needs to be made
with groups who gather in numbers greater than 25, as well as
with other lawyers who might support us.
On August 4th, petitions containing over 22,000 signatures in
opposition to the proposed regulations was delivered by a large
group to the Forest Service. 105 letters were also hand-
delivered at this time.
Shortly after delivery of the letters and petition sixteen people
were arrested at the Forest Service Administration building while
protesting the proposed regulations. All were charged with
"unlawful entry." This action received no press attention. All
are out on OR, to be tried Sept 15 in the District of Columbia.
One brother, Tye, pled guilty on August 12th.
This fight is far from over. We have at least 2 months, maybe 6
months or longer before the regulations can be finalized, and the
rule may become law, SUPERSEDING EXISTING LAWS IN ANY REGIONS WE
CHOOSE TO GATHER!! If they decide to go ahead, the next step is
for the Forest Service to review the public comment, and publish
a final rule in the Federal Register. This final rule is
supposed to address the issues raised in public comment. It is
extremely important for the Forest Service get pressure from
influential groups/people during this time. Unless the Forest
Service abandons this regulation, after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register, there will be a 30-day delay of
effectiveness, during which time legal challenges can be filed.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT MANY MAINSTREAM FOLKS FEEL THIS IS JUST
ANOTHER "NOT SO BAD" REGULATION. Lots of folks just don't seem
to comprehend the serious threat posed to freedom of thought by
regulations requiring permits for peaceable assemblies.
It's not too early to start seeking lawyers in every state who
would be willing to challenge this regulation should it go into
effect. All legislative representatives should be informed of
this serious Constitutional breach. Contacting groups of all
social strata is encouraged, especially those who gather in the
forests in groups over 25. Funds permitting, we can provide
literature for such endeavors. Let us know what you need.
WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN IN THE DARK. EFFORTS SHOULD
BE MADE TO DIRECT PUBLIC ATTENTION TO THE TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE
NATURE OF THIS REGULATION. We are suggesting that folks write
letters to local newspapers, call local talk shows, contact local
television stations, stage drum circles and pot-lucks outside
local Federal Buildings with signs drawing attention to the
regulations. Enough public pressure, perhaps directed at
Congress or the administration, might still convince the Forest
Service to change its mind, or, failing that, public interest
should be directed toward the court challenges.
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 462-0757
- 30 -