shakran

It wouldn't, if it were just a 100 foot stretch of mud that you could walk around. Let me tell you what it really looks like up in Tettagouche State Park in Minnesota (part of the Superior National Forest)

You have hiking trails that double as ATV trails in many places. They've been made extra wide to accomodate the ATV's. The ATV's have responded by driving across the entire trail as fast as they can no matter how soggy the ground is, resulting in places where, for half a mile or more the ATV's have created a mudhole. Getting off the trail is often not an option as you either have sheer cliffs on either side or extremely dense forest, or a marsh. And anywhere there is soggy ground, the ATV's have gone off the trail and turned half an acre or more into a mudpit, because it's fun to tear around getting muddy. Now we have a huge scar that hikers have to slog through.

Meanwhile there are plenty of ATV parks that have ready made mudholes, jumps, ruts, etc. All the fun shit you could want to do on your ATV, but no one uses them because it's cheaper and more fun to tear up the hiking trails.

No one is limiting access to anyone. Anyone who wants to can hike the hiking trails.

Saying you're excluding a group from accessing a place simply because you don't allow their recreational vehicle in that place is a shallow attempt to deceive people into thinking your rights have been violated. They still have the right to access that area as long as they walk, rather than drive. Similarly, I have the right to access the interstate as long as I drive, rather than walk. Or do you want to make the claim that restricting pedestrian traffic on the interstate is a rights violation as well?