"When ridding properly"

I rest my case.

Anyway, even when true that there is less damage, which I don't doubt is true in certain circumstances, that's a fairness argument. Part of the issue is keeping numbers down, so rather than opening a trail that already gets too much damage to other means of transportation, they just keep with the traditional access rules.

Another thing is the amount of distance one can cover on a bike. At best are you saying that there is less damage per mile travelled, but travelling many more miles means more erosion in a given day.

I wish we had more ATB access, because as a result of an accident I find walking difficult, but biking is sorta my wheelchair. There is an assumption that if you needed a wheelchair, you couldn't bike, but it is certainly not the case for me. I can keep up reasonably well on a bike, but walking wears me down rather quickly and the following day after a long walk, I am worse. I don't need a wheelchair, but I am handicapped to a degree.