The main issue I have is closing it off to everyone but hikers. They are all for this because their ox isn't being gored. They act like the fact they are on foot prevents their causing any damage. This is not the case as I have seen hiking trails with extreme erosion issues. And there is evidence that hikers cause more damage than bikes or 4wds when they are driven in a Tread Lightly manner.
Like many people on this forum, and in general, I'm not just an "overlander." In a given year I'll bikepack, backpack, mountain bike, trail run, hike with the dog, explore on a motorcycle, or plop my lazy ******** in a car seat for hours on end. Lots of us are multi-mode travelers. So, I can't whine about hikers because I'm one of them. I can't complain about overlanders, because I do that too.
There are definitely areas that are best explored on foot. To say foot traffic is as high impact as vehicle traffic is so silly we need never hear of that nonsense again.
As an obsessed cyclist who logs up to 9,000 miles in a given year. I also can't ride in a wilderness areas, but I can hike them. There's also lots of places I cannot go like the Rubicon trail. My rig wouldn't make it. So, by some of the logic posed above, we should either pave it for more available access or just close the sucker off.
At any rate, when one user group lashes out at another, it doesn't accommodate reality. Many of us represent the majority of user groups in and of ourselves and can see the arguments from all of those angles.
