August 31, 2003

To: Lynn Bidlack, Special Use Permit Administrator
Steve Ryberg, District Ranger
USFS, Intermountain Region
324 25th Street
Ogden, Utah 84401
Fax: 801-625-5378

Dear Permit Administrator Bidlack:

This letter succeeds your June 29, 2003 response to my June 25, 2003 request for amendment to the permit I signed. Two continuing reservations remain concerning the choices you adhered to concerning animals - the attending dogs and the offending horses.

As a preliminary matter I want to state what is at the root of both these issues. Your decision to issue the Operating Plan unilaterally, eliminating any interactive consultation with those on site, circumvented the dialogue necessary for a cooperative agreement. These issues would not have been so divisive had they been discussed and resolved with the people affected. Moreover, we agreed at the May 8th meeting to construct the Operating Plan in precisely such a manner.

1. Dogs.

a) The Forest Special Order requiring that "all dogs be on a leash or otherwise confined" was not conveyed to me in writing until July 5, 2003 despite my repeated requests for a copy of the order.

b) Although your letter notes that the "Permit was issued on June 17" there was no mention of dog leashing requirements at that time, nor inclusion of that issue in any of the follow-up paperwork.

c) I was informed verbally of this order for the first time only just prior the intense snowfall of June 23rd and 24th. You personally know every possible effort was made to communicate this sudden change of policy, but other, more pressing issues of health and safety were presented equally suddenly by the snowstorm.

d) Linked to the records of extremely aggressive enforcement for the most minor forms of infraction of this order (Owner ticketed for momentarily setting down leash while shouldering backpack), there has resulted a process of unjustifiable enforcement.

e) I share your view that leashing "is primarily a matter of public health and safety."

f) However, Inadequate Notice was given, preventing myself and others from being able to communicate in a timely manner your intention to conduct aggressive ticketing for dogs off leash. Inadequate Notice constitutes a breach of lawful policy.

Your remedies are threefold:

i) Insure that such orders in the future are received by permittees in a timely manner and allow for adequate time to relay the information (taking into account conditions in the field) before allowing citations to be issued. (Warnings are a preferable way of initiating enforcement. The choice to punish without warning is not conducive to a mutually respectful relationship.)

ii) Expunge from the record of Noncompliance Violations of my permit all citations and incidents for such violations written within 48 hours of the issuance of Forest Special Order 04-19-129.

iii) Request of the US Attorney that violations cited within that period be dismissed.

Regardless of the. relatively "minor" nature of the consequences of these citations, Inadequate Notice constitutes a violation of every person's Fifth Amendment rights to "due process of law," hence my continued concern over the precedence of Inadequate Notice or "sudden notice" being used in other, future, instances of expressive group use in much more damaging ways.

2. Horses.

a) The Forest Service mounted officer unit is still an unacceptable health hazard, more so than the risk posed by unleashed dogs.

b) Defecation and urination continued within kitchen/food preparation areas, kiddie village and other play areas, throughout the duration.

c) In instances where officers were asked to clean up after their own horses - even in. fo od preparation areas - not once did an officer do so.

d) Participants making such requests were ignored. Participants making repeated requests were told they would be cited for "interfering."

f) This sets an obvious double standard. On the one hand you are asserting public health and safety as a primary objective, including enforcement and punishment, and on the other hand you are approving of horses' entry into health sensitive areas, exposing adult and child alike, to the point of dismissing health concerns voiced by attendees.

g) In addition horse hoof prints created deeply carved narrow holes, easy to trip in. During the course of site rehabilitation and cleanup it was obvious that horse's hoof prints left compacted soil imprints deeper, more long-lasting and more damaging than did the far more numerous human feet.

h) There is no compelling reason whatsoever for the public to bear the expense of mounted officer units. Considering the health and environmental hazards involved, I personally question the basis for such an expense. I might note, when the horses were too tired to enter, the mounted unit patrolled on foot. Other than the improvement to the overall health and safety of the event, there was no discernible difference.

Because these are past occurrences there is no available remedy. In upcoming successive years, the elimination of the mounted unit will go a long way toward eliminating the double standard exhibited, and improving a mutually respectful relationship. Otherwise, encourage future Permit Administrators and Rangers to explore alternatives:

i) a requirement that all officers be required to dismount and "pooper scoop" their own horse's waste.

ii) a requirement that all horses be restricted to a distance of more than 300 feet from any food preparation areas and children's play areas.

Drafting an Operating Plan in interactive consultation with participants from different aspects of the event is the most workable way to anticipate and avoid real problems, including the two issues that are contained in this letter. That was our planned process from our first meeting. By unilaterally producing an Operating Plan, you end up trying to resolve problems thru me, contributing to the fiction that I am somehow their representative, able to negotiate in-the-field decisions for them. A truly independent Operating Plan, worked out with the individuals who are independently shouldering actual responsibilities is essential if this process is to become genuinely successful.

I look forward to receiving your response to these matters, especially as it relates to planning and preparation for future events.

Most sincerely,

Garrick Beck