….obviously over used areas of the Sierra are a different matter.
Although your points about the extrapolation and dogmatization of opinion into policy are both salient and well-founded, you’ve highlighted the epicenter of the issue here: it is overuse of an area – either intentional or incidental – that scars and changes the landscape from a mostly-wild space into a transformed and civil environment. When left to itself and only under light pressure, the landscape heals and adapts itself to usage on a constant basis; when usage exceeds the healing capacity, however, transformation occurs. Trails form, fires leave scars, waterways shift their course, forests are cut down, and fields are sown…and none of this is inherently bad: it’s simply different, in that the landscape is altered. What is unfortunate, though, is that as time passes the permitting or condemnation of any given transformative actions tend to be based less on necessity or information, and increasingly directed by the aforementioned and extrapolated dogma.
Or, more simply put: as time passes, humans tend to evolve into parrots.