I think the overwhelming majority of folks here on ExPo would agree with this simple proposition: 1) No new roads in wilderness areas, 2) Leave existing roads in place and maintain access for "off-road" vehicles 3) "Off road" vehicle travel to be limited to those existing roads except in designated "off-road" parks or certain unique areas (thinking about places like Pismo dunes, Glamis, etc). Certainly there is room for compromise around this position based on the specifics of a given area, but as a general starting point I'm completely in agreement with it.
The problem here is that I don't believe for a minute that the REI's and Patagonia's of the world or the organizations they support such as the Sierra Club or SUWA would agree to that proposition. Not even close. We continue to see road closures take place in our local area on an ongoing basis. Many existing roads are up for closure right now in the Big Bear area, some of which would eliminate access to some favorite camping spots that people have been using for decades, if not longer.
The long term trend is pretty clear: we continue to set more and more land aside as wilderness resulting in more and more road closures. In the real world we don't see maintenance of the status quo. In my opinion I don't think the environmental movement will ever be satisfied, there will always be another precious and unique area to close down. They will continue to use the Endangered Species Act as a tool to shut down more and more areas to human travel. There are some 1000 acres of prime hiking territory in the local mountains here in SoCal that have been closed to all human entry since 2005 supposedly to protect a frog species. Note, I'm not talking about off road travel, I am talking about closed to all human entry.
When you chose to paint me as someone who thinks the world should be "wheel-accessible" you are sadly off base.