Yes. I think the important thing to realize is that the federal government disbursing federal lands to states and private parties, and the disputes between OHVer's and other users of public lands are two separate battles. Don't lose the former because of angst over the latter. And bear in mind that not all opponents of OHV use are strictly environmental activists--many prefer the solitude that comes from only allowing hiking or paddling, and even want to keep mountain bikers out. Compromise needs to be achieved, and it's way easier when the OHV community is recognized as being respectful of LNT and Tread Lightly practices.

And, another concern I've mentioned here and there, is access after leases are given or property is sold. There are at least four or five routes that come to mind that I used to drive that today can't be fully driven because gates have been put up to protect various lessees or new owners of property. It is the nature of overlanding that we really appreciate wide expanses with great vistas of nature in the raw--the kinds offered in southern Utah.

 

First, I want to double down on the above view. Great video Mark BTW and I might one day want to get back with you for more information to plan a trip into that area.

Second, I have had considerable experience in the public land use political arena and the impact of special designations on Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) recreation. I founded the BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) in 1987 and served as its Executive Director until I retired at the end of 2005. BRC is celebrating 30 years of defending OHV recreation in the political and legal arena. You can search the internet for more information about the organization and if you want to protect your access to our public lands you should join.

The impact on OHV recreation of special designations varies from just increased restrictions in some cases to outright elimination in the case of Wilderness designation. The groups pushing these special designations generally are not our friends and some are outright opposed to OHV recreation on any public land. They continually push for Wilderness designation of public lands that we currently have access to. They often challenge public land "Travel Plans" that allow OHV access in court and BRC is the only national organization that has a viable Legal Action arm to address those challenges. Lesser designations are sometimes used as just a stepping stone for their ultimate goal of Wilderness designation. I am not personally familiar with the monument areas in Mark's video, but I know that OHV organizations in Utah opposed their designation. The negative impact on 4X4 trails may have been minimum, but you can bet that off highway motorcyclists and ATVers lost trails.

Full size 4x4 enthusiasts may suffer less negative impact from special designations than other OHV groups and snowmobilers. However numbers count in the political battles over public land access and my motivation for founding the BRC was to combine the forces of all OHV enthusiasts into a politically significant number.

 

I don't know if the attached newspaper article will be readable online or not, but I'll post it anyway. This article appeared in the "outdoor" section of our local newspaper yesterday. It is about the BRC and my involvement in land access issues.



You might have to open it in a new window or print it in order to read it.

 

No I just don't want the landscape littered with oil well like the entrance to Canyonlands and Dead Horse State Park or sold off to private parties that forbid entry onto the land.

 

The problem is that the OHVer's in the area have a reputation for running roughshod over the terrain, gaining access to cultural sites, then vandalizing them. My biggest disappointment reading the proclamation declaring Bear Ears NM was the fact that OHVer's were not mentioned. We'd be a lot further ahead if the initial declaration had stated that OHVer's are a part of this community of users ...

"The area contains numerous objects of historic and of scientific interest, and it provides world class outdoor recreation opportunities, including rock climbing, hunting, hiking, backpacking, canyoneering, whitewater rafting, mountain biking, and horseback riding. Because visitors travel from near and far, these lands support a growing travel and tourism sector that is a source of economic opportunity for the region."

I'd also point out that this thread is for the overlanding community. Our idea of what it takes to do what we enjoy is a lot different than the rock crawling community. It is generally compatible with users such as rock climbers, who wish to drive to their climbing sites, hunters, who tow their ATVs in that they'll use for game retrieval, and so on. As you wrote, a larger community is better.

Bottom line: I did my best to not state a particular position in the video, and provided links to a fair explanation of the controversies of the area. I appeal to folks to write their congressman and express their feelings. Theirs, not mine. They might not agree with me that this NM designation is a good thing.

One thing I know for sure: Grand Staircase-Escalante is here because it was protected as a NM. It's coal country. One of the largest deposits in the country. But it's overlanding heaven because of the NM designation.

 

Mark, I'm disappointed in your opening comment. While the OHV community has some bad apples, and they are the ones who get most of the media attention, most OHVers behave themselves.

One of my primary motivations in founding BRC was to insure that the OHV community was a player in the political, public relations and legal processes regarding our recreational access. You indicated that the NM declaration left OHVers out so we still have a lot of work to do in that area. To often OHVers complain about our lack of consideration around the campfire, but do nothing to address the problem. OHV organizations at the local, state and national level have come a long way but more OHVers need to be joiners so we can be more "Politically Significant."

 

Are lockers necessary for a good expedition vehicle. Looking at 2016 rubicon hard rock unlimited with 8500 miles and a 2015 sahara unlimited with 12,000 miles. The sahara is about 8-9k dollars cheaper.
FYI: I sold my 2013 jk over a year ago. I own a Subaru Crosstrek now but may get back into a jk unlimited.

 

Nope. But they do give you some distinct advantages that come with the traction they provide. For example, I believe they make it less likely to cut a tire due to less wheel spin. That also makes it easier on drive train components, saving them from the stress of spinning wheels suddenly getting traction.

The tough call is that for that kind of money, you could add them to the Sahara. However, you'd lose the Dana 44 up front. Also, Ive found the Rubicon's lockers to be darned near bullet proof. Sounds like they'd be under warranty for awhile, too, in the Rubi.

I'm sure there are durable aftermarket lockers, but I know nothing about them, so I'll defer to the experts here.

 

when your out in the middle of no place, they are nice. but with $8-9k, there is a lot of stuff you can do to the Sahara, like if you plan to put larger wheels & tires, which could mean gears and lockers.

 

I do have a pair of aftermarket air lockers in my two-door JK, but don't use them very often. Had the Jeep for two years with the factory open-diffs, and it did a very good job of allowing me to poke around the northwest, doing a lot of exploring & camping. Jeep's traction control & "brake lock diff" function actually do a pretty good job of limiting wheelspin.

Took the plunge for the lockers when I was upgrading to bigger tires, a small lift, and lower gears. They're nice to have, but not essential for most things I do. When it comes to scrambling up a steep, loose, rutted road, they are a comfort, no doubt.

Perhaps use the Sahara for a few months and see if you want to have it fitted with lockers? Perhaps you'll find they're not necessary for your purposes.

Regards, Guy