97 



of senses; to restrict the very public access, so passionately 

 defended in words only, to a whole class of public users. 



In the Winter 1992-1993 issue (volume # 52), in an article 

 written by the NORS staff, on page 6, entitled "NORS Appeals in 

 Oregon", (exhibit #2), the following statements can be found: 



"NORS recently appealed three river management plans in 

 Oregon, with the following results: 



North Unpqua River: NORS appealed a Wild and Scenic 

 management plan that would prohibit boating at certain times to 

 reserve the river for fly fishermen. The plan, administered 

 jointly by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 

 Management, would make boating illegal on a six-mile stretch of 

 the North Umpqua from the beginning of August through October. 

 In addition, all 34 miles of the Wild and Scenic section of the 

 river would be closed to boating in the evenings and early 

 mornings year round. 



NORS contended that the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

 does not grant management agencies the authority to kick off one 

 appropriate user group at the request of another, and that the 

 right to navigate rivers including the North Umpqua is held in 

 trust for the people by the states, in this case the State of 

 Oregon . " 



These statements, by the NORS staff, clearly state that they 

 do not believe in the concept of eliminating "one appropriate 

 user group at the request of another." However, when the U.S. 

 Forest Service postponed implementation of a plan to prohibit jet 

 boats from a 21 mile long section of the Snake River, NORS filed 

 an appeal and this same staff, in the Summer 1995 issue, (volume 

 #60), page 7, in an article t i 1 1 ed , "He 1 1 s Canyon plan postponed", 

 wrote : 



"The NORS appeal of the plan, filed by NORS Representative 

 John Garren, contends, first, that any jet boat use of a Wild 

 stretch of river is contrary to the spirit of the Wild and Scenic 

 Ri vers Ac t . 



Wording in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, such as 'vestiges 

 of primitive America,' should lead any river manager to believe 

 that powerboats are an incompatible use on these rivers, the 

 appeal states. The present plan offers an excellent opportunity 

 to provide a wilderness setting free of powerboats in the Wild 

 section while continuing to allow opportunities for powerboat use 

 in the (downstream) 'Scenic' section of Hells Canyon." (emphasis 

 added) . 



NORS, and others, contend that "any jet boat" use in a 

 section of river designated as "wild" by the Wild and Scenic 

 Rivers Act, is against the spirit of the act. However they 

 completely ignore the actual wording of the act in section 1(b) 

 which clearly states the requirement that these rivers be 

 "preserved in free-flowing condition." This requirement is also 

 reiterated in section 2(b) as follows: "A wild, scenic or 

 recreational river area eligible to be included in the system is 

 a free-flowing strean and the adjacent land area that possesses 

 one or more of the values referred to in section 1, subsection 

 (b) of this Act. Every wild, scenic or recreational river in its 

 free-flowing condition, or upon restoration to this condition, 



