Ultimately my question to Christensen is, " What is your alternative paradigm?" Maybe he has stated it somewhere, but beyond the quotation above, the article did little to elaborate on the point of Christensen's proposal. I suspect there is more but there is nothing in the article that suggests he is proposing to eliminate wilderness or open wilderness to exploitive uses.
If some one could come up with more detailed information on his position we might have a clearer Idea of what his position is.
I admire your mature rational approach to this subject. This is the line that set me off:
"Rather than accessing Muir's beloved Sierra Mountains as backpackers, skiers or rock climbers, they* argue, Californians would benefit more from....additional roads and trails in wild lands."
*Critics of Muir, I'm assuming Christensen included.
Build more roads in wild lands? Really?
oldranger wrote:"wild eyed, effeminate" liberals
Did you look carefully at the picture of Christensen? I know, I'm bad! That was a below the belt, ad hominem attack.
But really, just because you don't want to put a heavy pack on your back and climb up into "our" wilderness, doesn't mean we need to destroy it by building roads so you can enjoy it by driving in your air conditioned hybrid on a paved highway!