I guess the reasons for closing a trail are fairly reasonable and also clearly communicated. There are plenty of places without such restrictions if you want to explore the conditions the authorities want to safe-guard you against. I may not like the concept of "closing" a wilderness area, but I can see how that can be effective in keeping large numbers of people out of totally unnecessary mishaps. Including me, if I ever go there.
Do you know the reasons for the no-camping rule? Is it to lessen the environmental impact, channeling the stream of campers into other less vulnerable areas?
I agree, the closures are reasonable. If I want to disregard the signs, then that is my choice. Getting into predicament where I get hurt and require rescue (if at all), then maybe I will have my 15 minutes of fame on this forum with all the pleasentries that go with it such as being nominated for the "Darwin Awards" et al...
This google shot speaks volumes of the terrain in the back country here. Make no mistake, it is no place in winter for those who do not have complete survival gear, extensive back country and mountaineering experience.
As for visiting other areas without closures, yes you are correct I can go elsewhere which is often the case. On this day, the area was chosen due to it being close to home with only a 20 minute drive, and not to mention the great scenery. While we are there, we obey the trail signs...