Just an FYI :
During the Knik Public Use Area 'process', some of these folks and associates promoted, and still promote, well-documented 'misinformation' that resulted in non-motor trails being lost/seriously degraded along with important habitats. These trails had specific use public funding applied in the past, as verifiable by agency process plans, documents, and maps.
One of these historic trails accesses critical habitat (DNR and F&G Commissioners, 1984). A single track trail at the beginning of efforts to affect sustainable use, the trail is now torn to hell and habitat damages acknowledged (F&G). DNR's long drawn out process enabled 'established use' to occur - a very poor alternative to balanced wise use, enforceable use (anadromous fish habitat laws are routinely violated), and in no way 'traditional'. F&G, USFWS, Audubon, local government, soil scienctists and others had their contributed testimony ignored by an 'access at any cost' movement.
Another usurped route was built with equestrian group funding.
New regulations regarding allowable rutting have been put in place in the Knik and strict motor advocates (to include promoters of this subject new org.), as well as DNR, have stated their intent to apply this model to other public lands. The regulation is even completely 'lifted' for one area.
When you see folks being accused as 'Anti's' in a coalition announcement, balance may be lacking. That is a divisive, rather than reasoned approach.
Most land manager professionals now realize that not all uses are wise in all habitats - Alaska has a ways to go in that arena. Folks whom seek quiet use also have rights and needs and this becomes pronounced in areas of high use and population growth.
Full disclosure: I use OHV's in the Knik, but am proud to be a conservationist when it comes to the sensitive moose, waterfowl, salmon (wildlife in general) habitat that I have watched degrade. 'Tread Lightly' principles are routinely abused and provide thin cover. Restoration is expensive.
I respect the reasons for coalitions forming, but do not agree with unsupportable methods that harm sensitive habitats. Can we get beyond the 'anti' approach and weigh the impacts - I doubt it.