S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992). There is no explicit reference to a scienter requirement for any element of the offense described in 36 C.F.R. §§ 251.50, 251.51, and 261.10(k). As to the public welfare or regulatory purpose of the statute, there can be no doubt that regulations of this sort aid the Forest Service in its role of protecting lands under its stewardship and promoting public access, while controlling the potentially deleterious effects that unregulated group-use may have on public resources and health. Further, other courts have declined to impose a scienter requirement when reviewing convictions based upon similar Forest Service regulations. United States v. Doremus, 888 F.2d 630, 634 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1046, 111 S.Ct. 751, 112 L.Ed.2d 772 (1991) (<HOLDING>). In United States v. Kent, 945 F.2d 1441 (9th
holding that release must specifically identify persons to be discharged in order to ensure that intent of parties is fulfilled holding that in chapter 7 context the debtors had no power to transfer the property without the approval of the trustee holding that in the commercial mining context no knowledge requirement must be met in order to convict parties of mining without the appropriate permits holding that the point on appeal and the objection in the trial court must be the same in order for it to be preserved for appeal holding that all five elements of  547b must be met