Bicycles to be allowed in the Wilderness?!

A second reason is history (this is why horses are and always have been in Wilderness).

and threats apparently necessary.

Let more Wilderness Areas be created where bikers had been allowed, resulting in even more pissed off bikers

Post up a few links to people who think land managers are required to give access. I could not find any. "maximum extent practicable" is not a requirement.

It is left to the local official to determine "maximum extent practicable". If it's not practicable, then it's no.

"Let me make this very clear: It in no way interferes with the discretion provided in other regulations and laws that gives land managers the ability to close or restrict the use of trails according to site-specific conditions. These agencies have always had authority for example, to prohibit access if a trail is damaged or is incompatible with other uses, and that authority is undisturbed by this law," he said.

Everything can be litigated, when the language is not absolutely no or yes. How would you word it to allow a land manager to make the decision without letting them decide no due to their personal whims?

As a land manager I would consult with a range of experts to determine the effects on the particular are of interest. And the maximum extent practicable would be those areas that would have minimal impact, leaving the rest as closed to bikes.

And it seems you found no links to support your absolutely required interpretation.

"Let me make this very clear: It in no way interferes with the discretion provided in other regulations and laws that gives land managers the ability to close or restrict the use of trails according to site-specific conditions. These agencies have always had authority for example, to prohibit access if a trail is damaged or is incompatible with other uses, and that authority is undisturbed by this law," he said.

It's gotten so bad that there is now very little support among the hiking community for a proposal to expand North Cascades National Park.

It is the camel's nose under the tent. There's the bill itself, which is only about four sentences long, and the bill just says without qualification that bikes will be allowed in the wilderness preservation system. Proponents say it will give land mangers a chance to pick and choose where they go, but the bill doesn't say that.

The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) announced Wednesday that it will not support a bill pending in Congress that would potentially open federally protected Wilderness areas to mountain bikes. The announcement came as IMBA submitted its voluntary official testimony on the bill before a House subcommittee hearing.

“We know Wilderness hits some mountain bikers’ backyards, and we understand why those riders support this legislation,” IMBA President Dave Wiens said in a statement that acknowledged the bill's support within the mountain-bike community. But it also reaffirmed IMBA’s position that the advocacy group will not seek to reopen existing Wilderness areas—lands untouched by human development and managed by the federal government—to bikes.

We've found that hikers have the same effect as bikers do, regardless of the number of trips along the path.

Lifting the bike ban on a few obscure/remote "wilderness" areas will go unnoticed by 99.99% of the ignorant posters on here.