There are a couple of cases here to discuss (and I restrict this particular argument to NE):
1)
NEHH "trailess peaks". Most of these are no longer trailless. I would say the few left that have less then 50% of the route on herd paths are Mendon, PatN and Scar Ridge. These are still "partly to mostly trailess". Those with 50 - 100% herd paths (if you find them) are Elephant, Vose Spur, Cupsuptic Snow, East Kennebago, Noth Kennebago,and Whitecap. Those with 100% herdpaths are Fort and Nancy (did I miss any).
These are alll likely to become 100% herd paths in the next 10 years. At that point there will be no more bushwhacking on the HHs, and the herdpaths will become de facto trails. Ironically (and the experience in the ADKs confirms this) this will probably be a good thing for the forest as the usage will be concentrated in an easily defined (and perhaps maintained) corridor.
2)
"Lesser lists" (NHHH, 3ks etc.). These get so little use as to be laughable. We did a peak last weekend that had recieved ony 2 visits before us since 2000 according to the register, and peak baggers really, really love to find and sign those registers (some peak baggers are really "canister baggers" pretending to look for peaks
). Any twigs broken or moss steped on on these peaks are regrown in a season, if not sooner. Besides, there being no herd paths, everyone follows a different route (even Spencer and I followed different routes last weekend, although we were perhaps 10 yards apart). As someone above said, moose make a much bigger impact.
So in one case the problems solves itself (if you look at it that way), in the other case there is no problem.
But wait, what about the first case? Well compare the development of herdpaths into de facto trails with maintained trails. Some would say there are way too many trails on the Presidential Range than there needs to be. Should the USFS close them? Would that help? My experience is that the Presidentials are in significantly better shape than 30 - 40 years ago (as far as alpine zones, litter, etc.) except perhaps the summit of Washington. Ditto Mooselauke. Ditto the Franconia Ridge. I think at the moment, the forest can support the usage as long as we have dillagent users and good management.
Could things get worse? Of course. If usage went up by a factor of say 3 to 10, things would likely deteriorate.
But this has nothing whatsoever to do with bushwhacking. In a sense the "real" bushwhackers would just be driven away to find lesser used areas. Just yesterday I read a post by someone lamenting the "development" in the Pittsburg NH area. As a resident of NYC, that gave me a chuckle.
So look at the big picture. There are real problems for nature and nature lovers (from Global Warming all the way to the hot dog stand on Mount Washington) but I think bushwhacking is way down the list of priorities.