You're evading the question. The concern is that as we add more wilderness to the inventory we are excluding mountain biking from trails that historically allowed mountain biking. So how come we cannot preserve the land in question without excluding a user group that has enjoyed a sustainable and non-motorized use? Who is alienating whom in this scenario? The proposed legislation would allow local land managers to determine the best practices. In the case of establishing new protected Wilderness Areas where mountain biking has historically been allowed, this gives the land managers even more allies (the mountain biking community) by including that use. 

Wilderness purists need to forget the notion that the mountain biking community is making a grab for all current Wilderness. At the heart of this legislation is to prevent further loss of current trails open to biking.