Mountains Without Handrails: Reflections on the National Parks

by Joseph L. Sax

Focusing on the long-standing and bitter battles over recreational use of our national parklands, Joseph L. Sax proposes a novel scheme for the protection and management of America's national parks. Drawing upon the most controversial disputes of recent years—Yosemite National Park, the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, and the Disney plan for California's Mineral King Valley—Sax boldly unites the rich and diverse tradition of nature writing into a coherent thesis that speaks directly to the dilemma of the parks.

Genres: Nonfiction, Nature, School, Environment, Adventure

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1980

Reviews

[Nancy Lewis · Rating 5 out of 5]

An argument for cultivating wild places in addition to urban centers and resort destinations. Every type of experience has its place and should not be mixed. In other words, Disney should stick to running its amusement parks and stay away from our public lands.

[Hayden Mills · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this book. I've been frustrated by tourism in sacred places like Yosemite Valley and Sax accurately diagnoses a flaw in the national park service to acquiesce to such inclinations towards conventional recreation. instead, he urges that National Parks remain as places saved for contemplation and self-discovery.

Although I am politically conservative in many ways, the unnuanced and brash manner in which our natural resources are managed has been a disappointment to me. This book provides an alternative policy-wise that allows commercial and tourism to happen in selected environments. But those must NOT be in National Parks.

[Katieroses · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved how it reflected the pro's and cons of national parks, the discussion of how much do you make it accessible and how much do you leave untouched.
I take a stance on the preservationist side, but could understand making these places available to your common person.
Make sure you have a pen/pencil, I've underlined much of the reflections from this book.

[Paul Barta · Rating 4 out of 5]

4/5: a realistic and wordy view on recreation

I'll be honest: Sax has a better understanding of human beings than iconic conservationists like Leopold and Thoreau. This book is a manifesto on how people actually work: what they want to do, what they hope they want to do, how your type of work affects how you spend your downtime, how it's good to stop and enjoy the little things in your surroundings, and why sometimes we straight-up don't do that.

The concept of "contemplative recreation" is a great one, and with it the realization that yes, everyone can do it, but yes, it takes work and experience to get it right. A lot of park staff look at certain tourists and wonder why they're so bad at being a park tourist (tour buses, selfie sticks, "Hey son, get on that bison!", etc) when the answer is (1) they haven't learned how to focus on the parks and (2) the environment of the parks isn't perfect for letting them learn. This book is good because it lays out how to fix up this environment, while still understanding that people are gonna be people. This has gotta be essential reading for anybody putting together a park plan or an interpretive program.

The reason why this book isn't as iconic as stuff like Walden, or Sand County Almanac, or others, is for two reasons. First, this one ain't a philosophy tome and doesn't have the pure beauty of talking about walking in the woods. Second, the writing style is really damn difficult to access sometimes. Particularly in the middle of the book are sentences that'll make your eyes glaze over, as if the author decided to grab a thesaurus and shake it til some words spill out onto the page. You can actually see it in that term of "contemplative recreation," which is just fancy for "fella who stops and pays attention." This clears up in the last third of the book, though, and that's where the real good stuff is.

[Eugene Miya · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very good good, and I will go as far as to give it 5 stars.

It was Roderick Nash (Rod) who highly recommend this and a number of other books to me to read in addition to one of his class reading list, and unlike 1-2 other books, Joseph L. Sax did not disappoint me.

Sax basically warns about taming the National Parks (dumbing them down).

It has been a while since I purchased my extra copy outside of class.

[Lincoln Eddy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book still manages to be relevant in 2022. Maybe more so.

Making some excellent points, Sax spends this short book laying out the two roads we could take with the national parks. The preservationist view, espoused by Sax (and myself), doesn't discourage recreation but instead a more contemplative kind. Unfortunately, it feels that, with the rise of influencers and social media, we are encouraging the consumptive kind.

Overall, quite good, though fairly dry. I struggled to focuse a few times but that could just be me.

[Sarah Cunningham · Rating 2 out of 5]

I started this book sometime in 2024 and struggled to read more than a few pages at a time. It was recommended and as a public lands manager, I thought it would be insightful. It is more or less a historiography, which is important to the understanding of public lands have been viewed over time. It was dense, and not compelling. I had to force myself to get through it and often found myself skimming. It wasn’t until the last 10-20 pages I found much of interest.

[Skyler Singleton · Rating 4 out of 5]

A park ranger reading a book on the philosophy of National Parks? Likely thing for her to do.

[Alexis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read for Hist 476. Very interesting coverage of the national parks from a variety of perspectives. Short and sweet as well.

[Rebecca · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was hard for me to get into. The language is quite formal and at times almost textbook-y. (This coming from someone who uses nouns as adjectives (textbook-y) and reads a lot of YAF.) "In what would the use for which the canyon was reserved consist?" P. 95. I read that question a dozen times before I gave up and moved on. :) Three stars though because it made me think. My family just spent a week in Yosemite and I felt that question of "Where is the balance between preservation at all cost and providing comfortable recreation/convenience for visitors?" while there. I enjoyed getting lost in just the overwhelming beauty and quiet of places and moments, but I also enjoyed flushing toilets and the movie at the visitor's center. Staying in an RV in Yosemite Valley is not exactly roughing it, but I still felt the restorative power of being in nature. My family also recently went rafting down the Provo River. It was beautiful and so fun! There was this conflict happening live: rafters vs. fly fishermen! And even rafters vs. rafters - rafters there for adventure, rafters there to experience nature and rafters there to be drunk and obnoxious. Every person and group is there to fulfill some longing in their heart and maybe no one can have the pure experience they want because of the others. And who is "right"? Maybe I should try drunk rafting? Maybe I'm missing something awesome.

[Ellen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good read. Sax argues that national parks need to be managed with a goal of preservation in mind, regardless of demand for resource damaging recreation. He makes the point that people miss the potential of "contemplative recreation" that the parks offer. Sax argues this (intense experiences, such as a long hike, non motorized boats, primitive camping, bird watching etc.) is a more fulfilling use of park resources than an ATV gunning across a forest, scaring away animals, crushing plants, destroying peace, for example. Going so fast and you can't even enjoy the scenery, so why do you need to do that in a national park? Do those sorts of things elsewhere, Sax says, and leave the parks alone.

He also describes the perils of recreation that are about power, because then you will always be looking for a motor that's faster, stronger, and exhausts more resources. Sax compares that to other types of recreation that purposely limits our power to conquer nature so we can challenge ourselves, instead of conquer everything else.

Obviously Sax has an agenda here. I happen to agree with most of his points which he makes quite eloquently. He recognizes that his arguments might make him sound elitist (yeah, they do sometimes) but he argues that everyone will benefit from these policies, the national parks most of all.

[Jackson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Invocation of the contemplative faculty -- I would read it just for that! There is a current article in the Smithsonian about National Parks this month, too, and High Country News has them in *its* news. I am happy that our country has these 'uncommon Commons' for all to enjoy, and reading about them gears one up! "not to pander to popular taste, but to elevate it" I feel Victorian [in a good way]

[Laura Schmidt-Dockter · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is one of three books I am reading in preparation for a lecture on national parks with an emphasis on Theodore roosevelt's contribution to national parks. I found this book interesting, especially Sax's theories on the way people use parks differently; what people expect from the experience. Sax uses the phrase "ought to" throughout the book in a meaningful and thought provoking way.