After our collective win on the reopening of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area to UTV’s and ATV’s, we were contacted by a reporter from the Washington Post wanting to cover the story. We had no illusions that a national news outlet would set aside the heavy bias they usually reveal when reporting on land and the environment. However, we believed adding our perspective to the story would be better than not as they were sure to print the perspective of the other side.
BlueRibbon Coalition’s Executive Director spent the entire day with the WaPo reporter on trails, with ample time to unpack the nuanced details of the fight that has been unfolding for years.
Unsurprisingly, the printed WaPo piece misrepresented facts and left out important details. The article paints the issue as a culture war — wilderness preservation versus reckless recreation. But the real story is much more grounded than that.
Before anything else, it’s important to clarify the fundamental fact the article gets wrong: The article and their subsequent social posts position the area in question as a National Park.
This trail is not in a National Park. It is in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area — where motorized recreation is legal, longstanding, and appropriate. National Parks and National Recreation Areas are managed under entirely different frameworks. By implying this is about opening National Parks to off-road vehicles, WaPo is fueling public outrage with a false premise.
Additional misrepresentations include:
Visited Completely Separate Area to Show Resource “Damage”
WaPo traveled 50+ miles away to Swingarm City - a separate OHV-dedicated area - to show resource “damage.” Yet, on the 70+ mile trek led by BRC that included the 8 mile route segment in question, WaPo could not report one instance of resource damage from OHV use. And neither could the federal government. We asked them.
Showcases anti-access org in 4x4 on National Park trail
WaPo showcased the anti-access organization SUWA traveling on an off-road trail in a Toyota 4Runner— which is an equally capable, heavier vehicle that could cause the same amount of resource damage as the UTV they villainize. As SUWA’s supporters always say: They should have walked instead.
At BRC, we believe in a simple principle: America’s public lands should be accessible to the public — not just the able-bodied backpacker or those who believe nature is only for people who travel quietly and on foot, but families, veterans, elderly users, and those with limited mobility who rely on responsible motorized access to experience the outdoors.
Yes, side-by-sides make noise - so do diesel trucks, rafting groups on rivers, generators in campgrounds, and elementary school tours. The outdoors isn’t a museum — it’s a shared resource. And the solution isn’t exclusion. It’s education, collaboration, and thoughtful management.
We’re not blind to the importance of conservation. In fact, many of our members work with land agencies to repair trails, maintain signage, and promote stay-on-route ethics. Preservation and access are not mutually exclusive — they’re two sides of the same stewardship coin.
The 8-mile section in question wasn’t a pristine, untouched sanctuary. It was a route historically used by ranchers, families, and outdoor adventurers — one that had already been traveled by Jeeps and trucks, now open again to modern UTVs under clear regulations.
We believe the answer isn’t fewer people on our lands — it’s more people, more invested, and more responsible. That’s what keeps our public lands public.
We welcome dialogue with those who disagree. But we also stand firm:
Off-road users are not villains. We may not look and talk like how coastal elites want us to. Nonetheless, we’re neighbors, veterans, small business owners, and taxpayers. We’re young and old. And we all deserve a seat at the table.
