Nor am I an outright advocate of no improvement or regulation by hardship - I just remembered reading it somewhere.

However, I have seen places where, because visitors refuse overwhelmingly to apply low-impact practices, I could justify making it harder to get there. There are many spots in National Forests here in the east where the first two miles of trail are littered with beer cans and trash, the trees are hacked up, and "Sam and Sue Forever" adorn every rock face - sometimes painted, sometimes chiseled (sandstone.) Once, I wrote to the NFS in the Red River Gorge of Kentucky to suggest that they move the trailheads a mile or so back down the gravel roads because two places (Gray's Arch and Double Arch, for those familiar with the area) were getting beaten to death. I'm not naive enough to think that my letter carried any weight, but I found it interesting that, about two years later, they eliminated the road to the Double Arch trailhead completely and made the hike to it about 3 miles longer by starting it at Auxier Ridge. The reason they gave was overuse.

Just another example of what you're saying: you have to selectively apply general principles to selected situations.