I don't buy it, Dogbreath. We all justify lawful behaviour all the time. People justify all sorts of decisions to themselves and to others every day, like having a second dessert, or sliding into a fishing spot when another angler clears out to land a fish. Even before the courts people are often called upon to justify behaviour by proving that it is in fact (and in law) lawful; in effect, this is a matter of justifying lawful behaviour.
But that's not really the point. Regardless of whether the behaviour is lawful, the question I am asking is: should it be lawful, or is it desirable to allow jet boats on VI rivers? If so, which rivers and why?. Responding to opposition (and there is nothing oppositional in these questions, btw) by stating that they do not warrant a response because they inquire into lawful conduct only serves to stifle open discussion. These questions are legitimate regardless of whether the conduct at issue is lawful.
Besides, what was initially at issue in this thread is "the REAL reason that jet boats are banned on the Gold and Salmon rivers." If we were to adopt your position, the answer would be "this is not a question that can be asked. Jet boats are lawfully banned on those rivers. Because this prohibition is lawful, no one is required to justify this state of affairs." I don't know about you, but to me it sounds a whole lot more totalitarian to close debate preemptively than to give open and fair hearing to all sides of an issue. To be clear, this thread began by seeking a justification of a lawful state of affairs.
Also, the rule of law is precisely the opposite of totalitarianism. In a society organized according to the rule of law no one is above the law, including the highest officials. In a totalitarian system those in power are the law, and put themselves above it. Law and regulation based on reason, consistency, predictability and equal application is not a form of totalitarianism, it is the antidote to it.
I guess I am wayyyyyyyyyyy off topic here, huh? Sorry about that.