I've got no skin in the game, but this is about closing trails and roads, right? If I'm interpreting this right, it seems like this would allow for less pressure on the wildlife and make the area better for hunting for anyone willing to hike in a ways off-trail. I don't own an ATV, so if I lived in the area I think I'd write in comments supporting reduced access.
Your perspective is valuable and should be heard.
However, there are a number of issues at stake here, its not just ATV or SXS trail access that is in question. I will mention a few:
1. Much of this area (that which is most sensitive for wildlife) is already seasonally closed to human entry to protect wintering wildlife (mostly from shed hunters in the spring).
2. The majority of the acreage in question is used predominantly for grazing, hundreds of thousands of cattle and sheep. Due to the political pressure protecting grazing "rights" it is likely that ranchers will be exempt from any restrictions to access, and the livestock will continue to do far more ecological damage to the habitat of sage grouse and other species than the comparatively few roads that presently allow access.
3. BLM currently has a very limited, if not non-existent enforcement presence. Rules and restrictions currently in place are not actively enforced, and the only persons obeying present travel plan restrictions are those who choose to obey the rules for the sake of it. Unfortunately, decreasing the number of access roads only means that the law-abiding are provided with fewer options to access this country, while the less law abiding will continue to use the existing network of roads and trails. It is not dissimilar to the issues that IDFG have dealt with in enforcing the "Motorized Hunting Rule" which is rife with legal loopholes that make it extremely difficult for the relatively few conservation officers in the area to actually enforce... and basically means that law abiding hunters are left at a disadvantage when they are walking the extra several miles up an atv trail, only to be passed by other hunters on ATVs or dirt bikes who either ignorantly or willfully choose to skirt the law.
4. Much of the 100s of thousands of acres of national forest lands are behind the BLM lands. One needs to often traverse 10-30 miles of BLM just to reach the forest lands (and corresponding forest travel plan roads). Closure of BLM roads could limit access to forest roads and other public lands.
5. Where the relatively small portion of the area that is presently utilized for recreational access (atv riders, dirtbike rides, trucks driving in to hunt small game like rabbits, coyotes, birders driving in to access the non-private sides of a number of WMAs or National Wildlife refuges (which already have motorized access restrictions), and target shooters, it would mean a drastic change for the families who have used the space for decades and have come to rely on for wholesome recreational opportunities.
6. Public lands should be managed for the public. There are a variety of often conflicting uses and users that should be managed fairly. It would not be equitable that only a few particular end user groups are allowed to use the public holdings, while others are excluded. There should be opportunities for mountain bikers, hikers, atvs, sxs, birders, hunters, rock hounders, spelunkers, and everyone in between. Not all in the same space at the same time mind you... of course there should be areas only accessed on foot to protect those interests, but likewise it would not be equitable to not leave some access to wheeled users in other areas. While there are specific areas within the upper Snake Region I personally believe could be afforded more protection from wheeled access, there is a relative balance presently in place amongst the various end users that would be upset dramatically if the BLM closed the roads proposed in several of their proposals.