There's no reason for anything but appropriate seasonal closures on the roads and trails network, except politics.
That's rich Dave, is your concept of wilderness something that can be turned on and off by throwing a switch or locking a gate? It's clear that the idea of a place you can't access with a vehicle is abhorrent to you but luckily the majority of Americans disagree. If that wasn't true, there'd be no wilderness. You state your opinions as if they're facts but they're not even well-reasoned opinions.
Dave, the truth is there are lots of good reasons to close a small portion of public land to vehicles, as evidenced by all of the different year-round users that flock to wilderness. If there was no advantage to pursuing their pastimes in wilderness, they wouldn't expend the effort of walking in. Just about any of the pursuits you can name are better in roadless areas, and get better the farther one gets away from roads. Take camping for example, that's something everyone enjoys. I do my share of "truck camping" in places I can drive to, and I always bring an extra trash bag or two to clean up the beer cans, used diapers, and garbage people leave in their fire pits. But I don't particularly enjoy looking at live trees that have been slashed by some idiot with a hatchet, or listening to someone else's idea of "good music" at midnight. That's part and parcel of camping in areas with vehicle access. So sometimes I like to hike into areas where I can leave that all behind, lots of people do. Or take trout fishing. There's no comparison between a stream that's accessible by vehicle and one that's not, as far as the quality of fishing. Take mule deer or elk hunting, again no comparison. Radio telemetry studies show that elk especially avoid areas with vehicle traffic. Same with snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, mushroom picking, bird watching, peace and solitude, or fill-in-the-blank. I know you dismiss and look down on these types of users but the truth is, they have as much right to these lands as you, and as much say in managing them as you.
Personally, I'm glad that there are a few areas set aside (again, a small percentage of public lands) with much better hunting and fishing that I can access by just putting in the effort of walking in. Lots of hunters and fishermen feel the same. As much as you like to say otherwise, others aren't "locked out" of these areas. What it boils down to is, those willing to put in the extra effort are rewarded, and those who aren't, arent. I like that concept. It's similar to game management units with limited numbers of big game tags, except the only thing limiting the hunter is his willingness to put in a little effort.
And Dave, as much as you say otherwise, that's what BHA is all about. There's no left-wing conspiracy, and no affiliation with "the greens." That's a fairy tale you ginned up because you know it resonates with lots of people. BHA and "the greens" have one thing in common and that's the desire to keep wilderness areas as they are. Other than that, zero, zip, nada. I've been to a couple of BHA meetings and there were no "greens" there, just hunters and fishermen who like to pursue their pastimes in roadless areas.
Because that's where the best hunting and fishing is Dave. It really is that simple.
