You’ve Been Clickbaited — Now Let’s Talk About the Facts

If one of our outrageous social-media videos brought you here, congratulations: you’ve been clickbaited. No, UPLA didn’t buy 50,000 acres of Grand Staircase-Escalante. No, three million acres of Utah didn’t disappear. No, a mining company can’t file a claim today and have an open-pit mine operating by lunch. And no, rescinding the Roadless Rule doesn’t mean 45 million acres of National Forest will be paved by morning.

We made those headlines up. Why? Because public-lands advocacy has become increasingly dominated by frightening headlines, carefully selected words and claims designed to make you react before you have time to ask a simple question: What actually happened?

We’re going to have some fun with that, but we’re also going to show you the facts and let you decide for yourself.

“TRUMP OBLITERATES 3 MILLION ACRES OF UTAH — SATELLITES CONFIRM LAND HAS DISAPPEARED”

Okay, we made up the satellite part. But compare our ridiculous headline with some of the actual rhetoric surrounding the 2026 reductions of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance described the July 13 action as part of an effort to “dismantle and obliterate America’s system of public lands.”

Those are powerful words. But reducing a national monument does not make the public land disappear. Land removed from a national monument boundary does not automatically become private property. It remains federal public land unless it is separately disposed of under applicable law.

You can support the monument reductions or oppose them, but let’s debate what actually happened. The monument designation changed. The public land didn’t disappear.

UPLA has written extensively about exactly what changed—and what didn’t—in the 2026 monument proclamations.

Learn more: FACT CHECK: Separating Fact from Fiction About the Grand Staircase National Monument Changes

More background: Beyond the Memes — Why UPLA Made Monument Reform a Top Priority

“BLM REMOVES MONUMENT SIGN — ENTIRE MONUMENT IMMEDIATELY CEASES TO EXIST”

This one isn’t entirely random. SUWA has used words like “erase,” “destroy,” “obliterate” and “decimate” to describe monument changes and related federal actions.

Removing a sign doesn’t erase the land, and changing a monument boundary doesn’t erase the land either. What changes is the legal designation and management framework governing the affected acreage. That distinction gets lost pretty quickly when emotional language becomes the headline.

UPLA’s position has never been that the resources deserving protection should simply be abandoned. We have argued that important archaeological, historical, cultural and scientific resources can be protected without placing millions of surrounding acres under monument restrictions.

Learn more: Two Years of UPLA Advocacy Helped Shape a New Direction for Utah’s Public Lands

“UPLA BUYS 50,000 ACRES OF GRAND STAIRCASE — MASSIVE OHV PARK OPENS SATURDAY”

We admit it. This one is completely made up.

UPLA didn’t buy 50,000 acres. We don’t own Grand Staircase. And we’re not opening the UPLA Grand Staircase OHV Superpark this Saturday.

But there is a serious point behind the joke. National monument reductions are often described in ways that leave people believing public lands are being privatized or sold. Changing the boundary of a national monument and selling federal land are two entirely different government actions.

The 2026 proclamations did not transfer a single acre of the excluded lands to UPLA, the State of Utah, a developer, a mining company or anyone else.

National monument status is not the same thing as public ownership.

UPLA’s detailed fact check addresses this issue directly.

Read the fact check: Separating Fact from Fiction About the Grand Staircase National Monument Changes

“MINING CLAIM FILED IN UTAH — OPEN-PIT MINE EXPECTED TO BE OPERATING BY LUNCH”

This parody practically wrote itself.

Recent mining claims on lands affected by the monument reductions generated alarming headlines. But filing a mining claim is not the same thing as receiving permission to immediately construct and operate a mine.

Mining proposals can still involve federal land-management requirements, permitting, environmental review, cultural-resource protections and other applicable laws.

There are legitimate questions about future mineral development on these lands. Those questions deserve serious consideration. But a claim on a map doesn’t mean someone starts digging a giant hole tomorrow.

Mining claim does not equal operating mine.

For a broader explanation of what the Grand Staircase proclamation actually did, see UPLA’s Grand Staircase Fact Check.

“MINING COMPANY FILES 7 CLAIMS — ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, PERMITTING AND FEDERAL LAW IMMEDIATELY CANCELLED”

No. Removing land from a national monument doesn’t magically erase the rest of federal law.

There are legitimate questions about what mineral development may eventually be permitted on these lands, but that discussion should be based on what the law actually allows, not on the assumption that every other protection has disappeared.

Monument designation is one layer of federal land management. It is not the entirety of federal environmental and cultural-resource law.

Learn more about UPLA’s monument position: Beyond the Memes — Why UPLA Made Monument Reform a Top Priority

“NATIONAL MONUMENT REDUCED — PUBLIC LAND AUTOMATICALLY SOLD TO DEVELOPERS”

No sale. No developer. No moving trucks.

The land remains public land.

A national monument is a federal land designation. It is not synonymous with federal ownership itself. Americans should be able to debate whether a particular landscape deserves monument designation without being told that the only alternative is selling the land.

UPLA specifically addressed this misconception after the July proclamations: changing a monument boundary is not a change in ownership.

Read more: FACT CHECK: Separating Fact from Fiction About the Grand Staircase National Monument Changes

“MONUMENT BOUNDARY MOVES — BLM EMPLOYEES DISCOVER THEY NO LONGER MANAGE BLM LAND”

Fortunately, BLM found it again.

The federal government manages enormous amounts of public land that aren’t inside national monuments. Those lands don’t cease being public simply because they aren’t part of a monument.

The real question is not simply “protected or unprotected?”

The better question is: Under which laws and management framework should this public land be managed?

That doesn’t make as good a social-media headline, but it is a much more useful conversation.

For more about UPLA’s position on returning excluded monument lands to multiple-use management, read Two Years of UPLA Advocacy Helped Shape a New Direction for Utah’s Public Lands.

“ROADLESS RULE RESCINDED — 45 MILLION ACRES OF NATIONAL FOREST PAVED BY MORNING”

Better leave early. That’s a lot of asphalt.

Opponents of rescinding the Roadless Rule emphasize the tens of millions of acres covered by the rule. But eliminating the Roadless Rule does not order the Forest Service to construct roads across every affected acre.

It changes a nationwide regulatory restriction affecting road construction, reconstruction and certain timber activities. Individual projects remain subject to other applicable planning, environmental and administrative requirements.

There is a legitimate policy debate here: should one nationwide rule impose these restrictions, or should individual national forests have greater ability to make management decisions based on local circumstances?

That’s the debate. “45 million acres paved by morning” isn’t.

UPLA submitted detailed comments supporting rescission of the Roadless Rule.

Read UPLA’s position and comments: Comments Needed for Rescission of Roadless Rule

“FOREST SERVICE CONSIDERS CHANGING OHV RULE — MILLIONS OF ACRES IMMEDIATELY OVERRUN BY UNMANAGED SIDE-BY-SIDES”

We exaggerated this one, but perhaps not by as much as you think.

Opponents have characterized proposed Forest Service travel-management changes as opening millions of acres to “unmanaged” off-road vehicles.

That’s advocacy. The actual process is more complicated.

A proposal to revise a regulation is not the same thing as opening millions of acres tomorrow. Rules must go through the applicable process, and individual travel-management and route-designation decisions still matter.

UPLA strongly supports reconsidering federal regulations that have unnecessarily restricted responsible motorized access.

But a proposed regulatory revision isn’t an open trail.

UPLA has been working on travel-management reform and individual TMPs for years. You can see an example of that work in our Trail Canyon and Dino North Travel Management Plan comments.

“FOREST SERVICE REVIEWS CLOSED ROADS — HIKERS ADVISED TO FLEE NATIONAL FORESTS IMMEDIATELY”

Don’t cancel your hiking trip.

The Forest Service is reconsidering significant portions of its approach to motorized travel management. UPLA believes this review is long overdue.

Thousands of roads and trails have been closed or restricted through decades of travel-management planning, and we believe agencies should be willing to revisit those decisions rather than assuming every closure should remain permanent forever.

Conditions change. Technology changes. Recreation changes. Management capabilities change. Public needs change.

Reviewing a closed route doesn’t automatically reopen it. It simply asks a question UPLA believes should have been asked much more often:

Does this closure still make sense today?

This is the same principle UPLA has advocated in Utah when previously closed routes have been reconsidered.

UPLA Hasn’t Written on This Yet, but BlueRibbon Coalition Covers It Here Forest Service Overhauls Travel Management Planning

“50-YEAR-OLD OHV EXECUTIVE ORDERS RESCINDED — CLEAN WATER AND WILDLIFE REPORTED MISSING”

They’re still there.

President Trump’s May 2026 action rescinding the decades-old OHV executive orders represented an enormous change in federal motorized recreation policy.

UPLA supported that change.

We believe it is appropriate to reconsider a regulatory framework that has repeatedly been used to restrict motorized access. But eliminating one regulatory framework does not eliminate every environmental law governing federal lands.

Clean water didn’t disappear. Wildlife didn’t disappear. Environmental laws didn’t disappear.

The rules governing how agencies balance those interests are changing. That’s the real story.

UPLA covered the executive action when it happened:

Read more: President Trump Signs Historic Executive Order Restoring OHV Access

“OHV MINIMIZATION CRITERIA RESCINDED — SIDE-BY-SIDES NOW LEGALLY PERMITTED INSIDE VISITOR CENTERS”

Please don’t.

Seriously.

Changes to the old OHV executive-order framework do not mean every square foot of federal land is suddenly open to motor vehicles. Existing route designations, closures, travel plans and other restrictions do not simply vanish overnight.

This is exactly why UPLA believes motorized recreationists need accurate information too.

Responsible access requires responsible users.

UPLA and BlueRibbon Coalition have spent considerable effort seeking reform of the federal minimization criteria, including petitioning for revision of 43 CFR § 8342.1.

Read the background: Help Us Rescind the Minimization Criteria

Read about the executive action: President Trump Signs Historic Executive Order Restoring OHV Access

“PUBLIC LAND RETURNED TO MULTIPLE USE — CONSERVATION OFFICIALLY BANNED”

This may be our favorite.

Some public-land rhetoric treats multiple use almost as if it were the opposite of conservation.

It isn’t.

Multiple-use management can include recreation, grazing, wildlife, watersheds, minerals, energy, timber, cultural resources and conservation. It does not mean every use occurs on every acre, and it does not mean environmental considerations disappear.

UPLA’s position is simple:

Conservation and access can coexist.

That principle has been central to our position on monument reform. We have consistently argued for protecting important resources while allowing surrounding public lands to remain available for responsible multiple use.

Read more: Beyond the Memes — Why UPLA Made Monument Reform a Top Priority

“GRAND STAIRCASE OPENED TO MULTIPLE USE — EVERY ACRE SIMULTANEOUSLY MINED, DRILLED, LOGGED AND DRIVEN OVER”

That would certainly make for an interesting Tuesday.

But that’s not what multiple use means.

Opening land to consideration for additional uses does not mean every possible use will occur. It means those uses may be considered under applicable laws, plans and regulatory processes.

A recreation area can remain recreation-oriented. Important cultural resources can still be protected. Wildlife can still be managed. Motorized access can exist without converting the landscape into an industrial wasteland.

Multiple use isn’t maximum use.

For a deeper explanation of what actually changed at Grand Staircase-Escalante, see UPLA’s Grand Staircase Fact Check.

“NATIONAL MONUMENT REDUCED — 100,000 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IMMEDIATELY LOSE ALL FEDERAL PROTECTION”

No.

UPLA recognizes the importance of protecting archaeological, historical and cultural resources at Bears Ears and throughout Utah.

But national monument designation is not the only federal protection for archaeological resources. Reducing a monument does not suddenly make archaeological vandalism legal, authorize looting or repeal federal cultural-resource laws.

We can debate how these lands should be managed without pretending that reducing a monument creates an archaeological free-for-all.

In fact, UPLA’s monument advocacy has consistently argued that important resources should remain protected while access and multiple use are restored where appropriate.

Read more: Beyond the Memes — Why UPLA Made Monument Reform a Top Priority

For those who want to dig into the actual Bears Ears planning documents, UPLA also maintains its Bears Ears National Monument RMP Resource Center.

“EXECUTIVE ORDER EVICTS TRIBAL NATIONS FROM BEARS EARS — TRIBAL MEMBERS MUST VACATE MONUMENT BY FRIDAY”

No. Nobody is being evicted from Bears Ears. In fact, everyone is now welcome to enjoy this beautiful landscape.

The 2026 Bears Ears proclamation did make a significant change to the formal Tribal role in monument management by replacing the Bears Ears Commission with a new Monument Advisory Committee.

The Tribal Councils have a front row seat at the table, but they are now joined with state and local government in determining the plans for the area.

The new advisory structure includes representatives of the federally recognized Tribes with historical ties to Bears Ears. UPLA discussed that change—and the broader management changes contained in the proclamation—when it was announced.

Read more: Two Years of UPLA Advocacy Helped Shape a New Direction for Utah’s Public Lands

UPLA also maintains extensive background material on the previous Bears Ears management structure in our Bears Ears RMP Resource Center.

“NEW FEDERAL RULE BANS BAREFOOT TRAVEL ON PUBLIC LANDS — APPROVED FOOTWEAR REQUIRED”

We made this one up too.

Completely.

There is no new federal rule banning barefoot travel on public lands. No federally approved hiking-shoe list. No BLM footwear inspection station.

And, as far as we know, Crocs are still a personal decision.

Why include something this ridiculous?

Because it makes the point.

Put “BREAKING,” “NEW FEDERAL RULE” and the name of a government agency in front of almost anything and there’s a good chance somebody will share it before checking whether it’s true.

This one has no UPLA background article to link to because—again—we completely made it up.

Before you share it, get angry about it or organize against it, check whether the rule actually exists.

That’s exactly the habit this series is trying to encourage.

“SUWA ANNOUNCES PUBLIC LANDS DESTROYED FOR THIRD TIME THIS WEEK — BLM CONFIRMS THEY’RE STILL THERE”

Okay. We definitely made that one up too.

But it gets to the larger point.

SUWA, The Wilderness Society and other conservation organizations have every right to advocate passionately for their positions.

So does UPLA.

Advocacy, however, is not the same thing as objective description. That’s true when they do it, and it’s true when we do it.

That is why these reels are intentionally ridiculous. We want people to recognize how easily emotional language can take the place of understanding what the government actually did.

Words like destroy, erase, obliterate, decimate, chaos and exploit get attention. They are also very effective at shaping how people feel about an issue before they ever read the underlying document.

So yes, we’re going to have some fun with it.

But there is a serious message behind the parody.

Don’t just read the headline.

Read the proclamation. Read the executive order. Read the proposed regulation. Read the land-use plan. Read the environmental analysis. Read what SUWA and The Wilderness Society have to say. Read organizations that disagree with them too.

Then make up your own mind.

If you want to understand why UPLA has invested so much effort in reading thousands of pages of federal documents rather than simply reacting to social-media headlines, read Beyond the Memes — Why UPLA Made Monument Reform a Top Priority.

Our public lands deserve a debate based on facts rather than fear.

Read the Documents. Know the Facts.

Utah Public Lands Alliance believes responsible access and responsible stewardship can coexist. We advocate for public-land policies that recognize motorized recreation, multiple use, conservation, rural communities and meaningful public access.

And sometimes we’re going to use a little humor to make the point.

We Fight. We Win. We Ride.

We Give You the Facts. You Decide.

UPLA is committed to represent motorized off highway recreation first and foremost, but we also care deeply about the land in every respect. If you believe in us, please consider showing your support.

 

 

It’s Time to Rescind the Roadless Rule — Make Your Voice Heard

The U.S. Forest Service is once again asking the public to weigh in on the future of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and Utah Public Lands Alliance strongly supports its rescission.

The deadline to submit comments is September 21, 2026.

This is an important opportunity for everyone who supports responsible public access, active forest management, wildfire mitigation, multiple-use recreation, and locally informed decision-making to make their voice heard.

What Is the Roadless Rule?

The 2001 Roadless Rule established nationwide restrictions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting within inventoried roadless areas of the National Forest System. The Forest Service originally identified approximately 58.5 million acres under the Roadless Rule. Today, because Idaho and Colorado operate under separate state-specific roadless rules, the 2001 national rule applies to approximately 44.7 million acres of National Forest System land. The problem is not simply the number of acres involved. It is the use of a broad national rule to restrict management decisions across vastly different forests, landscapes, communities, and environmental conditions.

A forest in southern Utah should not necessarily be managed under the same rigid prescription as a forest in Alaska, Montana, California, or the Pacific Northwest. That is one of the fundamental reasons UPLA supports rescission.

UPLA Made Our Position Clear in 2025

In September 2025, Utah Public Lands Alliance submitted a detailed 23-page comment letter supporting rescission of the Roadless Rule. Our position has not changed.

UPLA argued that public lands should be managed through responsible, site-specific decision-making that balances conservation with access, recreation, forest health, public safety, and the multiple-use responsibilities Congress assigned to the Forest Service.

Our comments focused on several major issues:

1. Local Forest Planning Is Better Than a One-Size-Fits-All National Rule

Local Forest Service managers understand the conditions of their forests in ways that a nationwide regulatory prohibition simply cannot. UPLA supports returning these decisions to forest-level planning, where managers can evaluate actual terrain, vegetation, wildlife habitat, watersheds, recreation, wildfire conditions, community needs, and other local circumstances.

Rescinding the Roadless Rule does not mean abandoning environmental protections. Forest management decisions will still be governed by forest plans, the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable environmental laws and regulations. Rescission simply removes an additional nationwide prohibition that can prevent local managers from considering management options in the first place.

2. Forest Health Requires Active Management

UPLA believes healthy forests frequently require active management. Mechanical thinning, vegetation treatment, prescribed fire, targeted conifer removal, and other management tools can reduce hazardous fuels and improve the resilience of forests.

But managers need practical access to perform that work. In our 2025 comments, UPLA pointed to Utah’s Monroe Mountain Aspen Ecosystem Restoration Project on the Fishlake National Forest as an example of locally driven management. That project uses mechanical thinning, prescribed fire, and targeted conifer removal as part of a landscape-scale effort designed to restore aspen, improve watershed health, reduce hazardous fuels, enhance wildlife habitat, and maintain recreation and other uses.

That is the type of site-specific management we should encourage—not prevent.

3. Wildfire Changes the Equation

Wildfire conditions across the West have changed dramatically since the Roadless Rule was adopted more than 25 years ago. The Forest Service itself now acknowledges that the Roadless Rule can limit mechanical thinning and some fire-control tactics in inventoried roadless areas.

The agency estimates that approximately 9.8 million acres of inventoried roadless areas overlap the wildland-urban interface.

The Forest Service’s current proposal recognizes that rescission could provide additional opportunities for hazardous-fuel treatments and, where justified, strategically located roads that could improve wildfire suppression near communities and critical infrastructure. For UPLA, this is not an abstract policy discussion.

Communities, watersheds, wildlife habitat, recreation resources and public lands throughout the West face the consequences of catastrophic wildfire. Forest managers need every reasonable management tool available to them.

4. Roads Are Not Automatically the Enemy

UPLA also challenged the simplistic argument that roads should inherently be viewed as environmental liabilities. Responsible roads can provide access for firefighters, vegetation management, search and rescue, recreation, grazing, wildlife management, restoration projects, utility infrastructure and other legitimate public-land purposes.

The question should not be:

“Should roads be prohibited?”

The better question is:

“Where is access appropriate, and how should it be responsibly managed?”

Those decisions are best made through site-specific planning—not through a nationwide prohibition established more than two decades ago.

5. OHV Recreationists Are Part of the Stewardship Solution

Motorized recreationists do much more than simply use public lands. Across Utah, OHV clubs and volunteers contribute thousands of hours maintaining trails, clearing routes, repairing damage, supporting restoration projects, educating visitors, assisting land managers and helping maintain recreational infrastructure used by motorized and non-motorized visitors alike. UPLA highlighted these partnerships in our 2025 comments.

Responsible public access creates a constituency that cares deeply about these lands. People protect the places they know, use, maintain and love.

Closing or restricting access should not be treated as the default method of conservation.

What Rescission Does — And Does Not Do

There is considerable misinformation surrounding this proposal.

• Rescinding the Roadless Rule does not automatically turn millions of acres over to logging companies.
• It does not automatically build new roads.
• It does not eliminate environmental review.
• And it does not eliminate protections for wildlife, watersheds, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, or other important resources.

The Forest Service expressly states in the current proposal that rescission “does not mandate timber cutting or road construction.” Instead, rescission would remove the Roadless Rule’s nationwide prohibitions and return primary management decisions to the Forest Service’s normal land-management planning process.

That distinction matters. UPLA supports managed access and responsible multiple use, not unrestricted development.

The Forest Service Is Asking for Comments Now

USDA has now released its proposed rescission and Draft Environmental Impact Statement and is accepting another round of public comments.

Comments must be submitted by September 21, 2026.

This is where you can help.

Submit Your Comment

Tell the Forest Service that you support rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule.

SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT ON REGULATIONS.GOV

When commenting, consider explaining—in your own words—why these issues matter to you.

You might discuss your experiences with National Forest lands, motorized or non-motorized recreation, wildfire, forest health, volunteer trail maintenance, access for older or disabled recreationists, hunting, camping, local communities, or the importance of allowing local forest managers to make site-specific decisions.

Personal, substantive comments are more valuable than simply saying “I support rescission.”

Tell the Forest Service why you support it.

Read UPLA’s Detailed 2025 Comments

You don’t have to start from scratch.

UPLA’s September 2025 comments provide extensive background, arguments, examples, research and recommendations explaining why we believe the Roadless Rule should be rescinded. We encourage you to read them and use the information to help develop your own individual comments.

READ UPLA’S 23-PAGE ROADLESS RULE COMMENTS

Among the issues addressed in our comments are:

• Local forest planning versus nationwide prescriptions
• Congressional multiple-use direction
• Forest management and wildfire prevention
• Firefighter and emergency access
• Claims concerning roads and wildfire ignition
• OHV recreation and forest stewardship
• Forest Service road and maintenance funding
• Recommendations for responsible implementation following rescission

Public Lands Need Management — Not Management by Prohibition

UPLA believes conservation and public access are not opposing principles. We can protect watersheds, wildlife, forests, cultural resources and scenic landscapes while also providing responsible access and actively managing our public lands.

The 2001 Roadless Rule substitutes a broad national prohibition for the difficult work of locally informed land management. After more than 25 years, it is time for a better approach.

Give local Forest Service professionals the ability to manage local conditions.

Give firefighters and forest managers the tools they need.

Protect responsible public access.

Support multiple-use management.

Rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule.

Take Action Before September 21, 2026

COMMENT NOW — SUPPORT RESCISSION OF THE ROADLESS RULE

Please don’t assume someone else will speak up for public access.

Make your voice heard.

 

I’m Not Done Exploring — I’m Just Grateful There’s More Than One Way to Get There

I have loved the outdoors for as long as I can remember. Since childhood, some of the best moments of my life have happened outside. Over the years, I’ve backpacked, camped, hunted, sailed, scuba dived, rock climbed, explored caves through spelunking, and traveled to some incredible places. I’ve always wanted to see what was around the next bend, over the next ridge, underground, or at the end of a trail.

For much of my life, getting there under my own power was part of the adventure.

Over the past 15 years, I’ve rediscovered another way to explore that I love just as much: traveling into the backcountry in my Jeep or UTV.

There is something special about heading down a dirt road into the mountains or across the desert, stopping miles from pavement, turning off the engine, and finding yourself surrounded by nothing but the wind, trees, rocks and an enormous sky.

Some people seem to think experiencing nature from a motorized vehicle means you appreciate it less. My experience has been exactly the opposite.

My Jeep and UTV have taken me to places where I’ve hiked, explored historic sites, captured incredible photographs, camped with friends, watched sunsets, and simply sat quietly appreciating the landscape around me.

Yesterday gave me a new perspective on just how important that kind of access can be.

A Four-Mile Hike That Didn’t Go as Planned

Yesterday I took what should have been a relatively short adventure—a four-mile hike up Kanarra Falls in Southern Utah. During the hike, my heart went into atrial fibrillation, or AFib, and remained there for several hours. I finished the hike, but my day eventually ended in the emergency room.

After several attempts at cardioversion, my normal heart rhythm was restored.

Experiences like that have a way of getting your attention.

I’ll turn 70 this month, but I’m certainly not ready to stop exploring.

Next week I’m heading to Italy with friends for three weeks. We’ll be walking through Rome, Florence, Venice and other parts of the country, and I’m expecting plenty of days approaching 20,000 steps. I’m looking forward to every one of them.

So this isn’t a story about giving up. It’s about recognizing something I probably didn’t appreciate enough when I was younger.

Access Changes as We Age

When you’re young and healthy, it’s easy to think that if you want to experience the backcountry, you can simply walk there.

Throw on a backpack and hike ten miles. Climb the ridge. Scramble over the rocks. But our desire to experience wild places can outlast our ability to hike miles into them.

Yesterday reinforced that lesson for me.

I’m grateful that experiencing America’s public lands doesn’t always require hiking five or ten miles to get there. Dirt roads and trails allow me to travel deep into the forests and deserts I love.

Those routes don’t separate me from nature. They connect me to it.

Motorized access is sometimes discussed as though it’s simply about machines. For many of us, it isn’t.

It’s about where those machines allow us to go and what we can experience when we get there.

It’s about camping beside a mountain stream, reaching a spectacular overlook, exploring our history, spending a day with friends, or taking children and grandchildren somewhere special.

And as we grow older or experience physical limitations, it can mean continuing to participate in something that has been part of our lives for decades.

That’s Why I’m Going to Washington

After three weeks traveling through Italy, the next morning I’ll switch suitcases and jump back on a flight to Washington, D.C.

I’ll be going there to advocate for passage of the Outdoor Americans with Disabilities Act—legislation intended to protect and improve opportunities for people with disabilities to experience America’s public lands.

Yesterday’s experience made that mission even more personal.

Today, I can still hike Kanarra Falls. I can still plan for 20,000-step days in Italy. I can still climb into my Jeep or UTV and head into the backcountry.

But there are millions of Americans who don’t have all of those choices.

For someone whose age, injury, illness or disability prevents them from hiking miles into the backcountry, a motorized route may not simply be a recreational convenience.

It may be their only way in.

I have spent a lifetime enjoying the outdoors in almost every way imaginable—on foot, underwater, underground, on the water, on the rocks, in a tent, and behind the wheel. I want others to have those opportunities too.

That’s why I’m asking you to support the Outdoor Americans with Disabilities Act.

Protecting motorized access doesn’t mean everyone must be able to reach every acre of public land. It means recognizing that reasonable access gives people of different ages and abilities an opportunity to experience places that belong to all of us.

Yesterday reminded me how quickly any of us can find ourselves looking at access from a different perspective.

I’ll turn 70 this month, but I’m not done exploring.

Not even close.

But when the day comes that my legs can’t carry me as far as they once did, I hope there will still be a road or trail that can.

And I’ll keep fighting to make sure there is one for everyone else, too.

 

If you have a similar story, please share it with me to bring to Washington with me.

Loren Campbell
President, Utah Public Lands Alliance

 

 

What Does UPLA Actually Do to Protect Your OHV Access?

People often see Utah Public Lands Alliance asking for support, sharing an alert about a proposed land-management decision, or encouraging OHV users to submit comments. But those public-facing efforts are only part of what UPLA does every day to protect responsible motorized access to Utah’s public lands.

Protecting our access doesn’t happen in just one place. It happens in meetings with local OHV clubs. It happens across the table from land managers. It happens at the Utah State Capitol, in Washington, D.C., during federal public-comment periods, and sometimes in a courtroom.

Here are some of the ways your support makes that work possible.

Taking Our Case Directly to Federal Land Managers
Our most recent effort demonstrates just how much work can go into influencing federal public-land policy. On August 14, UPLA submitted three extensive policy-review comments to the Bureau of Land Management addressing BLM Manuals 6320, 6330 and 6340. These aren’t comments about a single trail, they address federal policies that will influence the management of millions of acres of public land and affect motorized recreation opportunities for years to come.

Our Manual 6320 comments address how BLM considers Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in its land-use planning process. UPLA argues that wilderness-character inventories should not become a backdoor mechanism for converting ordinary multiple-use public lands into de facto Wilderness. We also advocate for continued motorized access, stronger socioeconomic analysis, meaningful consideration of accessibility, mitigation before closure, protection of county roads and R.S. 2477 rights-of-way, and greater public participation.

Our Manual 6330 comments address Wilderness Study Areas, including the millions of acres that have remained in supposedly temporary WSA status for decades. Among other recommendations, UPLA advocates for maintaining lawful public access, transportation routes and infrastructure; improving wildfire resilience and public safety; considering impacts on rural economies; and resolving the status of remaining WSAs rather than allowing temporary study status to become permanent administrative Wilderness.

Our Manual 6340 comments address the management of congressionally designated Wilderness. UPLA supports protecting designated Wilderness while also insisting that Wilderness restrictions remain within the boundaries established by Congress. Our recommendations address administrative buffer zones, cherry-stemmed roads and access corridors, valid existing rights, public safety, emergency response, modern land-management practices, and protecting motorized recreation and multiple use on adjoining lands.

That distinction is important. UPLA supports responsible conservation and stewardship. What we oppose is using administrative policy to create restrictions that Congress never authorized. These three comment letters alone total more than 200 pages of analysis and recommendations.That is what serious participation in federal land policy looks like. We know that there will be a host of other updates we have been working on, and we will stay engaged on everyone of them.

Working Across Utah
Not every access issue begins in Washington. UPLA’s Executive Director Mike Lamar travels throughout Utah meeting with OHV clubs, land managers, community leaders and elected officials. Those conversations aren’t simply about fighting closures. They’re also about asking a much more productive question:

What can we do together to improve motorized recreation?
Sometimes the answer is improving or maintaining a trail. Sometimes it’s working with a land manager on a project. Sometimes it’s helping a club better understand the public-comment process or encouraging local users to become more involved before a land-management decision becomes final.

And sometimes it’s education. Responsible OHV recreation and good stewardship go hand in hand. UPLA encourages our constituents to respect public lands, stay on designated routes where required, participate in stewardship projects, and demonstrate that motorized recreationists can be some of the strongest partners our public-land managers have.

Our goal isn’t simply to protect the opportunities we have today.

We want to expand and improve responsible motorized recreation opportunities for tomorrow. This job is too important and time intensive for volunteers, so Mike is UPLA’s only salaried employee.

Having a Voice at the Utah Legislature
Public-land policy isn’t limited to federal agencies. Decisions made by the Utah Legislature can also directly or indirectly affect OHV recreation, public access and the way Utah’s public lands are managed. UPLA works with Brett Stewart, our Utah OHV lobbyist, to stay informed about legislation that could affect motorized recreation.

That gives us the ability to identify important bills, understand their potential consequences, communicate with lawmakers, mobilize our constituents when necessary, and advocate for legislation that protects or improves responsible OHV access.

We’ve also worked with event organizers and Utah State Parks to streamline application process and reduce fees for special events.

Effective advocacy means being involved before decisions are made—not complaining about them afterward.

Fighting for Access in Court
Sometimes comments, meetings and legislation aren’t enough. Sometimes protecting public access requires litigation. A significant portion of the money UPLA raises goes directly toward that fight.

Over the past couple of years, UPLA has contributed nearly $200,000 to BlueRibbon Coalition to help fund legal representation and litigation protecting public access. Court cases are expensive. Federal land-use litigation can take years. And organizations seeking to restrict motorized access have substantial resources of their own.

UPLA made a deliberate decision that one of the most effective ways we can use our donors’ money is to help put experienced public-access attorneys in the courtroom. We don’t need to duplicate that legal infrastructure ourselves. By supporting BlueRibbon Coalition’s legal efforts, our contributions can become part of a much larger and more effective legal strategy.

When an important access issue reaches the courtroom, OHV recreationists need someone sitting at the other table.

We help make sure they are there.

Taking the OHV Community’s Voice to Washington
UPLA works directly with officials in Washington, D.C.—both within the Administration and in Congress.
Those relationships give us an opportunity to explain how federal public-land policies actually affect people on the ground in Utah.

We’re preparing our next return to Washington now. One of the priorities for our upcoming trip will be advancing the Outdoor Americans with Disabilities Act. This time, we intend to bring something more powerful than a position paper. We are bringing disabled advocates who are themselves active OHV recreationists. They will explain firsthand something that is sometimes overlooked in discussions about motorized recreation: for many Americans with mobility limitations, a motorized vehicle isn’t simply recreation equipment—it can be what makes access to the outdoors possible. We want members of Congress and federal officials to hear directly from the people whose lives would be affected.

Where Does UPLA’s Money Come From?
This part matters. Utah Public Lands Alliance is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
-We aren’t funded by some giant corporate benefactor or billionaire.
-We don’t receive some mysterious pool of “dark money.”
-And claims that UPLA is secretly on the payroll of the oil and gas industry would almost be funny if they weren’t so ridiculously untrue.

UPLA exists because ordinary people who value public access choose to support us. UPLA  exists because the vendors you buy your vehicles and accessories from choose to support us.

People like you.
Those donations help us participate in federal land-management processes. They help put our Executive Director on the road meeting with clubs, communities and land managers. They help us maintain a presence at the Utah Legislature. They help us advocate in Washington.

And importantly, they help put attorneys in court when public access must be defended.

This Is What Your Donation Does
When you donate to UPLA, you aren’t simply supporting another outdoor organization.
You’re helping build a coordinated effort to protect motorized access at virtually every level where those decisions are made:
• On the trail.
• In our communities.
• At the land-management office.
• At the Utah State Capitol.
• In Washington, D.C.
• And in the courtroom.

We believe public lands should remain accessible to the public. We believe responsible motorized recreation belongs on those lands. We believe conservation and access can coexist. And we believe the OHV community must have an organized, knowledgeable and persistent voice whenever decisions affecting our future are being made.

But none of that happens for free.

UPLA exists through the generosity of the people we represent. If you value the trails you ride, the places you explore and the ability of the next generation to experience Utah’s public lands by motorized vehicle, we need your help.

Help Us Keep Fighting
Every donation—large or small—helps us continue the work.
Help us educate.
Help us advocate.
Help us legislate.
Help us litigate.
Help us protect your right to responsibly access America’s public lands.

“`

Beyond the Memes

Why UPLA Made Monument Reform a Top Priority

A monument boundary can change without transferring a single acre of public land. To understand what changed—and why UPLA fought for it—you have to read the plans.

Read the Documents, Not Just the Memes

UPLA does not form its positions by looking at memes. Neither should anyone else.

This is especially important when social media is filled with coordinated messaging from organizations that have repeatedly advocated restrictions on motorized recreation, including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, The Wilderness Society, Conserve Southwest Utah, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Sierra Club.

When you see a claim from any organization—including UPLA—look beyond the dramatic photograph or headline. Read the plan. Study the map. Follow the acreage. Find the controlling management directive and see what it actually says.

The number of times a claim appears in a social-media feed does not make it true. Large national organizations have millions of dollars, paid staff, and sophisticated communications operations. UPLA can compete on the facts, but we cannot match those resources dollar for dollar.

A Lesson We Learned the Hard Way

We learned, sometimes the hard way, that effective advocacy begins long before a final decision is announced. It begins with the discipline and professional capacity to read the documents, understand the maps, and engage while the plans are still being written.

That lesson became clear in 2023, through an experience we have not talked about very much. When the Grand Staircase–Escalante planning documents came out, UPLA did not submit its own comprehensive technical comments. We shared information, passed along BlueRibbon Coalition’s action alert, and encouraged people to participate. But the truth is, we did not yet have the professional capacity to work through thousands of pages of federal planning documents and prepare the kind of comments the process demanded.

That experience was a wake-up call. If we wanted to do more than object after a decision had already been made, we had to become effective while the decision was still being written. As a result, we made two important changes. 1) We expanded our Board to include people throughout Utah and beyond our origin’s full size 4×4 community to include all forms of motorized recreation. 2) We secured a grant and hired Rose Winn as our professional Natural Resources Consultant. Those decisions changed what UPLA could do and paved the way for how we have acted since.

That UPLA made overturning the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase–Escalante Monuments is not a new story, but it’s important you understand why we reached that decision to make it one of our top priorities

Building the Ability to Engage

Our involvement did not happen overnight. It developed over several years.

• In 2023, we alerted members to the Grand Staircase planning process and shared BlueRibbon Coalition’s action alert. We were engaged, but we were not yet equipped to prepare comprehensive technical comments of our own. Read UPLA’s 2023 Grand Staircase article.
• That gap became more serious as the federal government moved ahead with the 30×30 initiative, the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, and other sweeping land-use plans that eliminated 2100 miles of OHV routes in Utah in just two years.
• UPLA recognized that our Board needed to be more representative of our OHV community, so we expanded the Board to include members throughout Utah and from all motorized users.
• UPLA recognized that we needed professional assistance in analyzing the thousands of pages in each plan and to prepare detailed, substantive comments that would be used to not only influence the decision, but also to provide a strong legal basis to challenge bad decisions in court. We responded by securing a grant from the Utah State OHV Program and hired Rose Winn as our Natural Resource Consultant.
• By 2024, UPLA prepared a 60-page technical comment on the Bears Ears plan, conducted a joint webinar with BlueRibbon Coalition, published side-by-side comparisons of the alternatives, and given the public practical tools for submitting substantive comments. Visit UPLA’s Bears Ears resource center.
• Our comments have never opposed protecting cultural resources. We argued that protection and responsible access can coexist, that the agencies had not considered a true recreation-focused alternative, and that the proposed alternatives depended too heavily on closures and restrictions.
• When the final Resource Management Plans were signed in 2025, they confirmed many of our concerns. Rescission, boundary reduction, administrative reconsideration, or successful court action became one of UPLA’s highest priorities for 2026.

We pursued that priority through public comments, public education, financial and organizational support for BlueRibbon Coalition’s legal work, direct requests to the Trump administration, collaboration with state and local governments, congressional advocacy, and meetings with White House and federal officials. We have reported many of those efforts on our website, but the public record tells only a small part of what took place behind the scenes.

What the Grand Staircase Plan Actually Said

The Grand Staircase–Escalante numbers are especially important because they come directly from the signed 2025 Resource Management Plan. The plan allocated:

• 1,245,600 acres as OHV closed.
• 620,000 acres as OHV limited.
• Zero acres as OHV open.

The OHV-closed allocation covered about 66.6 percent of the 1.87-million-acre monument. Put plainly, roughly two-thirds of the expanded monument was placed in an OHV-closed category before the route-by-route travel planning was finished.

“OHV limited” does not mean unrestricted motorized use. It means vehicles are confined to routes specifically designated for motorized travel, and individual routes within those areas may still be closed in the later travel-planning process.

The 2025 RMP called for new travel management plans, but it temporarily retained most route designations from the 2020 plans. That is why someone could visit Grand Staircase after the RMP was signed, drive many familiar roads, and conclude that nothing had changed. The routes may have looked the same that day, but the policy governing their future had changed.

The 2025 RMP made the controlling land-use decisions first. Later travel management plans were intended to apply those decisions to individual roads and trails within the remaining one-third allocated as OHV limited.

 

Once the RMP designated an area as OHV closed, a later travel plan generally could not turn that same acreage into an OHV-limited area. The broad decision had already been made upstream, even though many of the route-by-route consequences were not yet visible on the ground.

BlueRibbon Coalition captured the point in one sentence: “Monument closures are a process, not an event.” Read BRC’s Bears Ears analysis.

That distinction matters. An agency can establish the governing restrictions in an RMP, postpone many route-level consequences until later travel planning, and then point to temporarily open trails as proof that nothing has changed. But the higher-level plan has already narrowed what can be considered later.

Figure 1. Grand Staircase–Escalante 2025 OHV area designations. Red areas are allocated as OHV closed; cream areas are OHV limited to designated routes. Source: Bureau of Land Management.

Bears Ears Restricted More Than OHV Use

The 2025 Bears Ears RMP reached far beyond motorized recreation. On BLM-administered lands, it allocated 591,185 acres as OHV closed and 483,917 acres as OHV limited. Another 46,348 acres of Forest Service land within the monument are designated wilderness and closed to OHV use.

Together, that is about 637,500 acres of OHV-closed land across the BLM and Forest Service portions of the monument. This is why readers may see two different figures: about 591,000 acres when only BLM land is counted, and about 637,500 acres when the Forest Service wilderness acreage is included.

The plan also included:

• A roughly 775,000-acre Remote Zone restricting mechanized as well as motorized recreation. “Mechanized” includes bicycles.
• Individual permits and seasonal restrictions for motorized travel in Arch Canyon.
• Motorized group-size limits affecting club rides, guided trips, and larger family outings.
• Restrictions on organized and competitive motorized events.
• Limits on dispersed camping and provisions for future designation of approved campsites.
• A monument-wide prohibition on recreational target shooting.
• Restrictions involving mountain bikes, climbing anchors, dogs, drones, geocaching, casual mineral collecting, and other activities.

UPLA represents motorized off-highway recreation, but our review does not stop there. These plans affected hunters, campers, cyclists, climbers, organized clubs, people with disabilities, and families who depend on a vehicle to reach the backcountry. When we find restrictions that affect other forms of outdoor recreation, we often address those issues in our comments too.

No Land Was Transferred to Utah

One of the most repeated claims is that the monument reductions transferred—or will automatically transfer—millions of acres of federal land to the State of Utah. They did not.

The proclamations did not transfer a single acre to the State of Utah. Land removed from monument status remains federal public land managed by the BLM or Forest Service.

 

The Bears Ears proclamation reduced the monument from about 1.36 million acres to 121,096 acres. The Grand Staircase–Escalante proclamation reduced that monument from about 1.87 million acres to 181,541 acres. Changing a monument boundary is not a change in ownership. The excluded lands remain federal public lands.

Any future sale, exchange, lease, mining approval, or other disposition would require a separate process under applicable law. The proclamations themselves approved no such transaction. Read the language in the Grand Staircase–Escalante proclamation and the Bears Ears proclamation.

Can a President Modify a National Monument?

Presidents have modified national monument boundaries many times over more than a century. In May 2025, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the Antiquities Act permits a President to alter or revoke an earlier monument declaration.

The 2025 Justice Department opinion provides the administration’s legal basis for that authority. Once again, don’t take my word for it, read the Justice Department’s opinion and see if it makes sense to you.

Additionally, the Tenth Circuit’s June 2026 decision did not rule that the Bears Ears or Grand Staircase expansions were unlawful, and it did not decide whether one President may reduce a monument created or expanded by an earlier President. It held that the district court had erred by refusing to examine whether President Biden exceeded the limits Congress placed in the Antiquities Act.

Those limits include the requirement that protected objects qualify as historic landmarks, historic or prehistoric structures, or other objects of historic or scientific interest, and that the reserved land be confined to the “smallest area compatible” with protecting those objects.

The court sent the case back for further proceedings. UPLA’s article on the Tenth Circuit decision explains the distinction. The Justice Department’s interpretation may now be tested in further litigation, and we hope the broader question eventually reaches the United States Supreme Court so the scope of presidential authority under the Antiquities Act can finally be settled.

What About Mining and Mineral Leasing?

The proclamations make excluded lands legally available for mineral leasing and mining claims, subject to valid existing rights, existing withdrawals, and other applicable laws. That deserves a straightforward explanation.

The proclamations do not approve a mine, issue a mineral lease, authorize ground disturbance, or guarantee that development will occur. Each of those actions will require separate applications, agency decisions, and environmental and cultural-resource review.

Mineral potential also does not mean commercially viable development is imminent. Much of this land saw little or no large-scale modern development immediately before its monument designation, and many leases or claims never become operating mines.

UPLA wants these remarkable public lands protected and beautiful. We also believe BLM and Forest Service lands should be managed under the multiple-use and sustained-yield direction Congress established. Administrative rules should not elevate one interest by sweeping every other lawful use aside.

We cannot know today how many viable proposals will emerge. When they do, UPLA will evaluate them individually and take positions that defend OHV access, protect important routes, and preserve the resources that make these landscapes worth visiting.

Hunting Is Defined in the Proclamations as an Express Priority

The proclamations direct federal agencies to consider maintaining and improving public access for recreation and hunting. That does not guarantee that every road will stay open or that every hunter will immediately have better access. The actual results will depend on the resource management and transportation plans that follow, but without the burden of the 30×30 or the Minimization Criteria clouding it.

What we can say is that hunting and recreational access are once again expressly identified as management priorities, rather than being treated mainly as threats to monument resources.

What Comes Next

The July 2026 proclamations were an important victory, but they did not finish the work. New resource management plans, transportation plans, route inventories, administrative decisions, and court proceedings will determine what the changes mean on the ground. We also hope to persuade Congress to act to clarify intent of the Antiquities Act.

What happens next will depend on whether people who care about responsible access stay involved while the new plans are being written.

UPLA will be there—reading the thousands of pages of documents, analyzing the maps, keeping you informed and educated, and submitting substantive comments. We will continue fighting for decisions that protect these landscapes while keeping them accessible to the public.

If you value this work, please make a donation today and give as generously as you can. Your support helps us obtain professional analysis, participate in federal planning, educate the public, and defend responsible access.

 

The future of public access will not be decided by the loudest meme. It will be decided in the plans—and by the people willing to show up before those plans become final.

Sources and Further Reading

Bears Ears National Monument Poses Devastating Loss to OHV — UPLA’s 2022 warning.

Grand Staircase Comments Due by November 9 — UPLA’s 2023 engagement and the capacity gap that experience revealed.

Fight Back to Keep Our Roads and Access Rights — UPLA’s decision to support and help fund BlueRibbon Coalition’s legal work.

Bears Ears RMP Resource Center — Rose Winn’s analysis, the joint UPLA–BRC webinar, comment tools, and UPLA’s 2024 participation.

Department of Justice Responds to Trump’s Inquiry — The 2025 legal opinion and its implications.

A Turning Point for the Antiquities Act — UPLA’s explanation of the June 2026 Tenth Circuit decision.

Two Years of UPLA Advocacy Helped Shape a New Direction — UPLA’s meetings, objectives, and response to the July 2026 proclamations.

Every time you turn onto a dirt road, climb a rocky trail, or head into Utah’s backcountry, you’re enjoying something that can no longer be taken for granted: motorized access to our public lands.

Keeping that access takes work—and money.

The Utah Public Lands Alliance (UPLA) works to protect and defend responsible motorized access across Utah—for full-size 4x4s, UTVs, ATVs, motorcycles, overlanders, and everyone who depends on motorized access to enjoy our public lands.

The Fight Happens Long Before a Trail Closes

Most trail closures don’t begin with a gate across the road. They begin years earlier in planning documents, environmental reviews, travel management plans, agency policies, regulations, legislation, and courtrooms.

That means we have to be involved before the closure happens—and wherever the decisions are being made.

UPLA reviews federal land-management proposals, prepares substantive public comments, educates and mobilizes the off-road community, works with land managers and elected officials, advocates for policies that protect responsible access, and helps fund litigation when legal action becomes necessary.

What Have Your Donations Helped Accomplish?

UPLA doesn’t just talk about protecting access. We put your donations to work.

We built professional capacity to fight travel-management closures. UPLA has expanded its ability to analyze thousands of pages of federal planning documents and prepare detailed, substantive comments on travel management plans affecting motorized access across Utah. These decisions can determine which roads and trails remain available for decades to come, so having knowledgeable people involved in the process matters.

We mobilize Utah’s off-road community. UPLA works with a network of 49 Utah OHV clubs and thousands of independent volunteers to document routes, identify maintenance needs, provide local knowledge, and make sure the people who actually use these roads and trails have a voice in federal planning decisions.

We take Utah’s OHV voice to Washington. UPLA is focused on protecting motorized access and OHV recreation here in Utah. But many of the federal policies, regulations, and agency decisions that ultimately determine what happens on the ground in Utah are made or influenced in Washington, D.C.

For that reason, UPLA has developed strategic but limited contacts with federal agency officials, members of Congress, and congressional staff. We use those relationships when issues in Washington could directly affect motorized access in Utah—providing information from people who know these lands, explaining the real-world consequences of proposed policies and legislation, and making sure Utah’s OHV community has a voice in decisions that could affect our roads and trails.

Our Washington efforts aren’t about expanding UPLA’s mission beyond Utah. They’re about protecting Utah by being present where decisions affecting Utah are made.

We invest in the legal fight. UPLA has contributed nearly $150,000 to BlueRibbon Coalition’s Legal Defense Fund in the last two years, helping support litigation defending motorized access—including major legal battles right here in Utah. Sometimes administrative and political efforts aren’t enough, and the courtroom becomes the last line of defense.

And we’re still fighting. From travel management planning in places like Trail Canyon, Dino North, the Henry Mountains, Paunsaugunt, and the Dolores River area to larger policy, regulatory, legislative, and legal battles affecting motorized recreation across the West, UPLA continues to show up where access is at stake.

We Are Massively Outgunned

There is another reality every Utah off-roader needs to understand.

Organizations advocating for public-land policies that often restrict motorized access have financial resources that dwarf ours.

These aren’t simply conservation organizations with a different philosophy about public lands. They are actively involved in the policies, travel plans, legislation, and litigation that determine where motorized recreation will and will not be allowed.

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) makes its position particularly clear in its own description of the organization: it says that since 1983 it has worked full-time to defend America’s redrock wilderness from threats including “rampant off-road vehicle use” and unnecessary road construction. Read SUWA’s statement for yourself.

That makes this more than a philosophical disagreement for Utah’s OHV community. Decisions these organizations advocate for can directly affect the roads and trails we depend on for motorized access.

Now consider the resources available to just two organizations active on public-land issues affecting Utah.

According to financial information extracted directly from IRS Form 990 filings and published by ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer:

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) — ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer reported for 2024:

$12.67 million in revenue

$5.78 million in total expenses

$32.11 million in net assets

And The Wilderness Society — ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer reported for its fiscal year ending in 2024:

$42.03 million in revenue

$43.48 million in total expenses

$93.34 million in net assets

Click either organization’s name above and you can see the financial information for yourself.

To be clear, we are not suggesting that every dollar those organizations spend is directed at restricting OHV access. These figures represent their total organizational expenses.

But they demonstrate the enormous difference in resources between organizations involved in the public-lands debate and UPLA.

Together, SUWA and The Wilderness Society reported more than $49.25 million in annual expenses.

Now compare that with UPLA.

2026 has made huge progress in fundraising and expanding our capacity to fight back and we are on track to have our largest spending year in UPLA’s history—but still only $250,000.

The combined annual spending of just those two organizations is nearly 200 times UPLA’s projected record spending for 2026.

This Is David Versus Goliath

We are massively outgunned. Our adversaries have the resources for attorneys, professional staff, policy experts, communications programs, government-relations efforts, fundraising operations, and years of sustained involvement in public-land policy.

UPLA operates on a fraction of those resources. And yet we keep showing up.

• We analyze massive federal planning documents.
• We prepare substantive public comments.
• We organize and mobilize Utah’s OHV community.
• We work with federal land managers.
• We maintain strategic contacts with decision-makers in Washington.
• We advocate for legislative and policy changes affecting Utah access.
• And when necessary, we help fund litigation to defend motorized recreation.

UPLA has become very good at operating on a shoestring and accomplishing far more than our budget would suggest. But there is a limit to what determination, volunteers, and a shoestring budget can accomplish.

We Don’t Need $49 Million. We Need You.

UPLA isn’t trying to become a $49 million organization. And we don’t have to match our adversaries dollar for dollar. But we do need enough resources to fight effectively.

We need professional expertise when thousands of pages of federal planning documents determine the future of hundreds of miles of roads and trails. We need to be at the table when important decisions are being made. We need the ability to mobilize Utah’s OHV community when thousands of voices can make a difference. And when every other option has failed, we need the resources to fight in court.

That’s where you come in.

How Much Is Your Access Worth to You?

Think about what you’ve invested in enjoying Utah’s public lands.

Your 4×4, UTV, ATV or motorcycle. Your trailer. Camping equipment. Fuel. Tires. Repairs. Trips with your family and friends.

For many of us, off-roading isn’t simply something we do. It’s part of how we live and how we experience Utah.

But none of that investment means very much if we lose the places to ride.

So we’re asking you to do more than agree with UPLA. We’re asking you to invest in protecting your access.

Show us how much you value your right to responsibly recreate on Utah’s public lands using a motorized OHV. Maybe that’s $25. Maybe it’s $100. Maybe it’s $500, $1,000 or more. Only you can decide what protecting motorized access is worth to you.

But think about what could happen if every Utah off-roader who cares about keeping our roads and trails open contributed even a fraction of what they spend each year enjoying them.

We may be outspent nearly 200 to 1. But they don’t have what we have: 250,000 Utah off-roaders with a personal stake in keeping these lands accessible.

We need you standing with us. We Need You.

Don’t wait until your favorite trail appears on a closure map. Don’t wait until there’s a gate across the road.

Show us how much your motorized access means to you.

Help give UPLA the resources to fight for the roads, trails, and public lands you use and love.

Protect your access. Protect your trails. Protect the future of motorized recreation in Utah.