96 



attitude of these se 1 f -ano i n t ed- i n t e 1 1 ec tua 1 s who continually put 

 pressure on Congress to compress everyone else into their very 

 narrow definition of an ideal recrea t i on i s t . These elitists act 

 as though they personally own the natural resources of this 

 na t i on . 



The "National Organization for Rivers," in their own 

 publication, "Currents" magazine, emphasizes its goal of access 

 to a wide range of river users. In the "Winter 1994-1995" issue, 

 *59, (exhibit #1) on the inside cover, can be found the following 

 statements: " The name of this organization should not suggest 

 in any way that the value of rivers is only in their visitor use 

 days ■ " 



"In a similar way, we have found that those who wish to 

 close (or partially close) rivers to public access sometimes 

 characterize river running as a t hr i I 1 spor t that government 

 agencies can limit or prohibit as they desire. But the U.S. 

 Supreme Court, as well as numerous state courts, have repeatedly 

 ruled that rivers that are navigable in fact are navigable in 

 1 aw , and that for these legal purposes nav i ga t i on includes 

 recreational travel by individuals in canoes, kayaks, and rafts, 

 even where there are major rapids. The law recognizes your right 

 to navigate rivers, not to engage in a sport. (Even though in 

 practice they are the same thing.) Again, we wouldn't want the 

 organization name to suggest that river running is merely a 

 sport, because it is in fact a basic legal right." (emphasis 

 added) . 



Since NORS is so adamantly opposed to the right of jet boats 

 to navigate the entire length of the Snake River, a river that is 

 unarguably "navigable in fact" for jet boats, that it believes 

 that the "law" the Supreme Court, and numerous state courts, 

 ruled on in the above paragraph, only applies to selected 

 segments of river users. This is the attitude that has created 

 an atmosphere of non-compromise that will never allow a fair and 

 equal river management plan to be implemented in Hells Canyon. 

 If navigation is in fact a basic legal right for one single user 

 group, that same legal right must most assuredly extend to 

 others . 



In another paragraph of the same article, (exhibit #1), 

 while explaining why the letter "s" has been retained in the 

 acronym "NORS", even though the organization is now only known as 

 "National Organization for Rivers," the word "Sports" has been 

 deleted, the author states: "If you want to find a source for 

 the s_ in NORS, you could use the s at the end of the word rivers , 

 thereby emphasizing the plural--that NORS wants to preserve, and 

 ensure access to, numerous rivers." 



In a flyer, requesting contributions, entitled, WHAT IS 

 "NAVIGABILITY"?, (exhibit #l(a)), NORS lists three different 

 legal definitions for the term, "navigability." The final 

 paragraph of this flyer states: "PLEASE SEND YOUR TAX-DEDUCTABLE 

 CONTRIBUTION TODAY in the enclosed envelope. Help NORS continue 

 to work for free public access and preservation on all of the 

 nation's navi gabi e -- i n the broadest sense--r i vers ! " It is clear 

 that NORS is in the business of soliciting funds from individuals 

 "in the broadest sense" and applying those funds in the narrowest 



