I am commenting from a position as a lifelong user of our public lands. I grew up in Inyo County and the Eastern Sierra was my backyard. I backpacked, fished, hunted throughout the Sierra and Inyo/White mountains. I also worked for the Inyo NF first on a YACC crew, later a trail crew and also as a seasonal firefighter, so I feel have a lot invested in this issue. I have experienced access shrink on the Inyo NF and local BLM areas probably about 50 percent. Areas designated "wilderness areas" that have two track roads with ruts up to your knees, posted now as wilderness with no access (Inyo Mt Wilderness) and many other closed roads with no real input from local users. I've experienced the same thing on other forests where I also recreated and worked (Lassen NF, where I worked on a road crew) Plumas NF, and Shasta/Trinity NF while living in Lassen County.
Over the years (decades actually) I've experienced our access to public lands through two track, minor roads, fire access and otherwise roads not considered maintained two lane roads. These roads have impacted land management and fire access which have created an extreme fire danger is many areas where the fire danger and intensity have resulted in millions of acres of severe loss of resources. Many of the fires have burned so hot that the soils have been virtually destroyed through sterilization and creating a water repellent surface. I have personally seen extensive erosion from these conditions and the lands will take decades if not centuries to recover.
Let's move on to access.
There are many folks who aren't able to walk in to sites that have existing roads that are closed due to administrative access restrictions with no real explanation as to the reason other than it's being studied or because the district ranger "said so". The citizens who actually own these lands are being shut out of them by kowtowing to special interest groups and the "sue and settle" process they use to force their will on everyone. This process impacts those people who are the least able to access these lands by means other than walking. The government strives to conform to ADA requirements but tends to shut out folks with mobility issues other than highly developed and very crowded areas.
These roadless areas also impact those who have grazing, mining and logging leases which make it much more difficult to manage and rehabilitate the lands they have as a lease agreement. It seems that the heavy handed government land managers in many places (not all) are using roadless areas as a tool to erase years and decades of lands which are stated to be "multiple use" public lands. We need to have reasonable oversight and re-open these lands which have been "studied" for 3 to four DECADES! It is high time to open these lands again for public use and start managing these public properties. Locking up land and leaving it alone which increases fuel loads, lose access to prevent of fight fire, arrest erosion, and allow grazing lease holders to improve water catchment, fencing and range (feed) management.
Thank you for considering my points towards re-opening restricted "roadless" areas, many which have existing roads but were redefined during the Clinton Administration to make it easier to close access to previously open areas.
Randal Stevenson