What do you think?
Rate this book
Natural Rivals: John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and the Creation of America's Public Lands
John Muir, the most famous naturalist in American history, protected Yosemite, co-founded the Sierra Club, and is sometimes called the Father of the National Parks. A poor immigrant, self-taught, individualistic, and skeptical of institutions, his idealistic belief in the spiritual benefits of holistic natural systems led him to a philosophy of preserving wilderness unimpaired.
Gifford Pinchot founded the U.S. Forest Service and advised his friend Theodore Roosevelt on environmental policy. Raised in wealth, educated in privilege, and interested in how institutions and community can overcome failures in individual virtue, Pinchot’s pragmatic belief in professional management led him to a philosophy of sustainably conserving natural resources.
When these rivaling perspectives meet, what happens? For decades, the story of their relationship has been told as a split between the conservation and preservation philosophies, sparked by a proposal to dam a remote Yosemite valley called Hetch Hetchy. But a decade before that argument, Muir and Pinchot camped together alongside Montana’s jewel-like Lake McDonald in, which was at the heart of a region not yet consecrated as Glacier National Park.
At stake in 1896 was the new idea that some landscapes should be collectively, permanently owned by a democratic government. Although many people today think of public lands as an American birthright, their very existence was then in doubt, and dependent on a merger of the talents of these two men. Natural Rivals examines a time of environmental threat and political dysfunction not unlike our own, and reveals the complex dynamic that gave birth to America's rich public lands legacy.
Gifford Pinchot founded the U.S. Forest Service and advised his friend Theodore Roosevelt on environmental policy. Raised in wealth, educated in privilege, and interested in how institutions and community can overcome failures in individual virtue, Pinchot’s pragmatic belief in professional management led him to a philosophy of sustainably conserving natural resources.
When these rivaling perspectives meet, what happens? For decades, the story of their relationship has been told as a split between the conservation and preservation philosophies, sparked by a proposal to dam a remote Yosemite valley called Hetch Hetchy. But a decade before that argument, Muir and Pinchot camped together alongside Montana’s jewel-like Lake McDonald in, which was at the heart of a region not yet consecrated as Glacier National Park.
At stake in 1896 was the new idea that some landscapes should be collectively, permanently owned by a democratic government. Although many people today think of public lands as an American birthright, their very existence was then in doubt, and dependent on a merger of the talents of these two men. Natural Rivals examines a time of environmental threat and political dysfunction not unlike our own, and reveals the complex dynamic that gave birth to America's rich public lands legacy.
304 pages, Hardcover
Published August 6, 2019
37 people are currently reading
628 people want to read
About the author
John Clayton
35 books21 followersJohn Clayton is the author of Natural Rivals: John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and the Creation of America’s Public Lands (Pegasus, 2019). The Wall Street Journal says, "Mr. Clayton writes with clarity, passion and insight." John's previous book, Wonderlandscape: Yellowstone National Park and the Evolution of an American Cultural Icon (Pegasus, 2017) arose because he has lived for 29 years on the outskirts of Yellowstone, watching how his houseguests and others react to the world's first national park. What makes Yellowstone famous? And how has that changed over the years? John is also the author of Stories from Montana's Enduring Frontier, a collection of essays on Montana history. A major previous book, The Cowboy Girl, is a biography of the Montana/Wyoming novelist, journalist, and homesteader Caroline Lockhart. John is an independent journalist and essayist who lives in Montana with his dog Chaka Khan.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
January 19, 2020
Topics covered by this book such as the effort it took to establish national forests and parks, the personalities who participated in that effort, and the mindset of the United States at the time were interesting. Learning more about the objections, the political hurdles, and disagreements and egos make me more appreciate the accomplishment of establishment of public parks. Unfortunately, strange jumps in time, many extraneous details, and trying to explain two historically significant stories simultaneously (lack of rivalry and establishing public parks), made this book not as enjoyable of a read as I had hoped.
May 23, 2022
This book dives deep into the relationship between Muir and Pinchot. One might expect a tempestuous relationship as the ideological fathers of Preservation and Conservative intellectually duke it out. In actuality, they had a moderate friendship and were respectful of each other's points. While honest and realistic, it doesn't exactly make for a page-turner.
June 26, 2025
This book is incredibly well researched and painstakingly chronicles two icons of the environmental movement who are often reduced to short, inspiring quotes in contrast with each other. I knew and loved both of these guys before reading this book but I feel like I have a deeper understanding of their character now. It reads a bit like a textbook at times (hence why it took me so long to finish), but there’s an undeniable appreciation for the sublimity of nature underlying Clayton’s writing. The epilogue is very inspiring.
March 23, 2021
Natural Rivals is an examination of the evolution of public lands: how they came to be, how people have viewed them, and the arguments had over their creation and management. The author does this through the lens of John Muir and Gifford Pinchot, as Muir is typically remembered for preservationist viewpoints (set this land aside and let nature be) while Pinchot is typically remembered for conservationist viewpoints (set this land aside so the government can better control how and when it is used). The first part of this book - roughly the first half - is split into two minibiographies of the men. The second part of the book - roughly the last half - focuses on the wider world around them as they lived their lives and went about their own personal crusades for public lands.
That being said, I think this book had a lot of lofty ambitions. It certainly attempts to explain and examine a very wide variety of topics ranging from biographical information to the implications of public policy. In trying to tackle such a vast array of material, there are times the text feels confused or repetitive to a reader. To be fair, the author does make his thesis clear: the supposed personal divide between Muir and Pinchot is mythical, an invention of history that can be traced to one person who entirely made up a fight between the two; both Muir and Pinchot were nowhere near as clear cut in their philosophical and public policy beliefs as Schoolhouse Rock-esque histories would have us believe; and the supposed philosophical/public policy divide over preservationism and conservationism is the overblown partisanship leftover from initial arguments about whether and how to use public lands, even though time - and multiple lands tracts with many and varied uses and restrictions - has illustrated that both are complimentary and work best together after one has taken into account that different lands are best suited to different things. Yellowstone, for example, would not serve well as a mining site but does amazing things for its surrounding population as a tourist attraction; in this case, preservationist philosophy has served the greater, longer-term public good than could any other use potentially applied to the holding. I didn't necessarily agree with everything the author said - for example, logging in national forests is routinely done at a loss to government agencies, not a profit, and comes with concerns of environmental damage (loss of habitat, contamination of water sources, potential erosion, etc), so there's a lot of detail relevant to the argument that the author didn't get into - but the book itself was decent, if only for its examinations of Muir and Pinchot.
That being said, I think this book had a lot of lofty ambitions. It certainly attempts to explain and examine a very wide variety of topics ranging from biographical information to the implications of public policy. In trying to tackle such a vast array of material, there are times the text feels confused or repetitive to a reader. To be fair, the author does make his thesis clear: the supposed personal divide between Muir and Pinchot is mythical, an invention of history that can be traced to one person who entirely made up a fight between the two; both Muir and Pinchot were nowhere near as clear cut in their philosophical and public policy beliefs as Schoolhouse Rock-esque histories would have us believe; and the supposed philosophical/public policy divide over preservationism and conservationism is the overblown partisanship leftover from initial arguments about whether and how to use public lands, even though time - and multiple lands tracts with many and varied uses and restrictions - has illustrated that both are complimentary and work best together after one has taken into account that different lands are best suited to different things. Yellowstone, for example, would not serve well as a mining site but does amazing things for its surrounding population as a tourist attraction; in this case, preservationist philosophy has served the greater, longer-term public good than could any other use potentially applied to the holding. I didn't necessarily agree with everything the author said - for example, logging in national forests is routinely done at a loss to government agencies, not a profit, and comes with concerns of environmental damage (loss of habitat, contamination of water sources, potential erosion, etc), so there's a lot of detail relevant to the argument that the author didn't get into - but the book itself was decent, if only for its examinations of Muir and Pinchot.
January 22, 2020
Part biography of Muir and Pinchot, part history lesson on national parks and the fight for public lands. Fantastic book that shows how differing opinions on why something needs to be done does not mean that you can’t share a goal, or that the different viewpoints are not compatible.
While I feel I much more fall into the Muir camp of protection and preservation, this book really made me understand the difference between preservation and conservation.
With the frequent erosion of public lands in our current political climate, I feel this book is incredibly timely, and not only a great history lesson, but a strong message about our future.
While I feel I much more fall into the Muir camp of protection and preservation, this book really made me understand the difference between preservation and conservation.
With the frequent erosion of public lands in our current political climate, I feel this book is incredibly timely, and not only a great history lesson, but a strong message about our future.
Read
December 20, 2020DNF at 20%. For some reason I'm just absolutely sliding off this and I can't tell whether it's me or the writing.
June 23, 2021
A nice read with a good general overview of the early history of public lands in the United States. The narrative and timeline gets a little confusing at times as the timeline of events within the narrative is not always clear. The author's lofty praise of these two men can be very adjective heavy and repetitive. I felt even more "technical" detail could have been given in regards to the lands being described, such as more detail into general land use in the west when these reserves were being set aside. Lastly, the author points to Hetch Hetchy as a historical inflection point of the relationship between Muir and Pinchot but it did not feel like the appropriate ink was given to the events of the Hetch Hetchy dam being created and the event itself is almost lost in the middle of the book, despite the fact that the author's thesis is to debunk the "enemy" narrative historically given to Muir and Pinchot. Nevertheless, the author proves his thesis that these two great men were amiable rivals rather than polar opposites.
May 10, 2022
“Muir was a prophet, free to preach bold moral declarations: Trees are good. Sheep are bad. Nature is God. He didn’t have to worry about how to implement these principles in the real world. Pinchot, however, was a statesman. He was in the thick of implementation; he was the one who had to deal with real people struggling to match individual actions to philosophical theories. The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once described prophet-versus-statesman as a central paradox of morality. Once is committed to an individual interpretation of the voice of God, the other to obligations of community in a sinful world. Who was morally superior, Niebuhr asked, abolitionist-prophet William Lloyd Garrison or opportunist-statesman Abraham Lincoln? Neither—they were morally equivalent: “The moral achievement of statesmen must be judged in terms which take account of the limitations of human society which the statesman must, and the prophet need not, consider.””
September 27, 2020
As a fan of both history and hiking our natural parks, I found this to be wonderful.
Imagine a time when our politicians united for the greater good, when the greater good was up for great debate. When brilliant, eloquent, principals, creative, compassionate, wise, and charismatic people step up and working together great things will happen. While today the default is building walls on party lines, there have been times when collaboration maybe didn’t move mountains, but at least protected them for the rest of us.
Imagine a time when our politicians united for the greater good, when the greater good was up for great debate. When brilliant, eloquent, principals, creative, compassionate, wise, and charismatic people step up and working together great things will happen. While today the default is building walls on party lines, there have been times when collaboration maybe didn’t move mountains, but at least protected them for the rest of us.
October 2, 2023
John Muir, the most famous naturalist in American history, protected Yosemite, co-founded the Sierra Club, and is sometimes called the Father of the National Parks. A poor immigrant, self-taught, individualistic, and skeptical of institutions, his idealistic belief in the spiritual benefits of holistic natural systems led him to a philosophy of preserving wilderness unimpaired.
Gifford Pinchot founded the U.S. Forest Service and advised his friend Theodore Roosevelt on environmental policy. Raised in wealth, educated in privilege, and interested in how institutions and community can overcome failures in individual virtue, Pinchot’s pragmatic belief in professional management led him to a philosophy of sustainably conserving natural resources.
When these rivaling perspectives meet, what happens? For decades, the story of their relationship has been told as a split between the conservation and preservation philosophies, sparked by a proposal to dam a remote Yosemite valley called Hetch Hetchy. But a decade before that argument, Muir and Pinchot camped together alongside Montana’s jewel-like Lake McDonald in, which was at the heart of a region not yet consecrated as Glacier National Park.
At stake in 1896 was the new idea that some landscapes should be collectively, permanently owned by a democratic government. Although many people today think of public lands as an American birthright, their very existence was then in doubt, and dependent on a merger of the talents of these two men. Natural Rivals examines a time of environmental threat and political dysfunction not unlike our own, and reveals the complex dynamic that gave birth to America's rich public lands legacy.
Even in class we are taught something of being opposition to one another, instead they often brought out something better in the other. Each wanted to save our wildernesses and public lands though as with sheep grazing they differed in their approach, but each held the other in respect.
We have seen recently a push to allow the mining , drilling and exploiting of our public lands, so the fight that Muir and Pinchot started years ago is still ongoing and just as important today.
Gifford Pinchot founded the U.S. Forest Service and advised his friend Theodore Roosevelt on environmental policy. Raised in wealth, educated in privilege, and interested in how institutions and community can overcome failures in individual virtue, Pinchot’s pragmatic belief in professional management led him to a philosophy of sustainably conserving natural resources.
When these rivaling perspectives meet, what happens? For decades, the story of their relationship has been told as a split between the conservation and preservation philosophies, sparked by a proposal to dam a remote Yosemite valley called Hetch Hetchy. But a decade before that argument, Muir and Pinchot camped together alongside Montana’s jewel-like Lake McDonald in, which was at the heart of a region not yet consecrated as Glacier National Park.
At stake in 1896 was the new idea that some landscapes should be collectively, permanently owned by a democratic government. Although many people today think of public lands as an American birthright, their very existence was then in doubt, and dependent on a merger of the talents of these two men. Natural Rivals examines a time of environmental threat and political dysfunction not unlike our own, and reveals the complex dynamic that gave birth to America's rich public lands legacy.
Even in class we are taught something of being opposition to one another, instead they often brought out something better in the other. Each wanted to save our wildernesses and public lands though as with sheep grazing they differed in their approach, but each held the other in respect.
We have seen recently a push to allow the mining , drilling and exploiting of our public lands, so the fight that Muir and Pinchot started years ago is still ongoing and just as important today.
September 28, 2024
A meh treatment of both men individually, and of their backgrounds, with a so-so treatment of their interaction that halfway busts some myths that the unfamiliar may hold about Muir, Pinchot, or both, while leaving others in place.
And, per other reviewers, this is all compounded by a back-and-forth, overall not fully chronological style, that a better author with a better playoff between the two subjects could have done more with.
In reality?
First, Muir was, in the terms of the day, sometimes a "conservationist" not a "preservationist" himself. That includes at Yosemite.
Second, bits of Muir's racial attitudes toward American Indians were, I believe, starting to come back into more public notice by the time of this book. (Much more so afterward.) They're not mentioned. I don't know what Pinchot's stance was; I suspect it wasn't more enlightened. Clayton does once, re Yellowstone and its establishment as a national park, mentioned it was indeed inhabited at the time — just not by White folk. Yosemite never gets even that bit of backgrounding.
Third, the TR to Taft handoff? Clayton, like most people I've read on this subject not named Doris Kearns Goodwin, gives Taft short shrift.
And, per other reviewers, this is all compounded by a back-and-forth, overall not fully chronological style, that a better author with a better playoff between the two subjects could have done more with.
In reality?
First, Muir was, in the terms of the day, sometimes a "conservationist" not a "preservationist" himself. That includes at Yosemite.
Second, bits of Muir's racial attitudes toward American Indians were, I believe, starting to come back into more public notice by the time of this book. (Much more so afterward.) They're not mentioned. I don't know what Pinchot's stance was; I suspect it wasn't more enlightened. Clayton does once, re Yellowstone and its establishment as a national park, mentioned it was indeed inhabited at the time — just not by White folk. Yosemite never gets even that bit of backgrounding.
Third, the TR to Taft handoff? Clayton, like most people I've read on this subject not named Doris Kearns Goodwin, gives Taft short shrift.
August 17, 2020
A pretty good book with lots of information that was new to me. But I found it disjointed—skipping around the years and a confusing cast of characters. Also the author seems fixated on dichotomies rather than complexities: rich/poor, elite/working class, East/West etc. I never could find the language of Section 24 of the Forest Reserve Act of 1891. Clayton says it was one sentence without a noun and grammatically incoherent (p. 138), but what the heck did it say exactly to deserve so much space in his book?
Clayton correctly observed the current problems with a president and Congress that cannot compromise or even debate intelligently our current needs for public lands and why Federal ownership is important. And just today Trump announced that he is opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil extraction. Muir and Roosevelt must be rolling over in their graves.
Uniting rivals is a skill and much needed today, not a president who creates enemies and harbors grudges.
Clayton correctly observed the current problems with a president and Congress that cannot compromise or even debate intelligently our current needs for public lands and why Federal ownership is important. And just today Trump announced that he is opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil extraction. Muir and Roosevelt must be rolling over in their graves.
Uniting rivals is a skill and much needed today, not a president who creates enemies and harbors grudges.
November 12, 2021
A nice history - well researched and a good look at the way common perception of the divide between preservation and conservation in the public lands conversation is dualistic and simplistic. Using biographical looks at Muir & Pinchot on the creation and advocacy of public lands as a starting point, the book then looks more into the actual debate and political creation of public lands in the United States. A really good entry into this topic, particularly if all you know is that President Roosevelt created the National Park Service, or that both Yosemite & Yellowstone claim to be the first National Park...Muir & Pinchot are both complementary and dedicated figures in this trajectory of American values.
February 19, 2023
I read this on the heels of another book in the same genre. I found this book to be well researched, and as many reviews before me stated, the first half consisted of biographies of Muir and Pinchot. As someone who is a frequent hiker of both state and national parks, I have a vested interest in keeping and sustaining our environment. These men lived in a time when people could sit on opposite sides of the aisle and have a common goal of coming together to do the right thing to accomplish it. I am not sure how this helps us in our current state of being, but the book has definitely given me a taste for this and I want to read more about both of these men, Roosevelt, and the people currently working on solving our climate crisis.
February 12, 2024
This book was simply just alright - it felt like a lot of speculation with no firm decisions for chapters with very broad themes. The book would have been better chronologically rather than jumping back and forth between times. You would get one “conclusion” about either Muir or Pinchot at the end of a chapter then at the beginning of the next one you had to think retroactively about how they acted 10 years earlier. Overall, I did enjoy learning about the turmoil regarding the creation of the National Parks, but something inside me believes that there has to be a book out there that explains it better.
May 14, 2024
Most people are familiar with John Muir. Not so much with Gifford Pinchot, the founder of the US Forest Service. They were friendly rivals and the environmental debate between preservation vs. conservation can be traced to their early perspectives on the purpose and benefits of public lands for usage. This is a mostly entertaining and engaging history of environmentalism as it was practiced in its infancy, though the second half does tend to lose some steam in the legislative details of what it took eventually to create the US Forest Service. Teddy Roosevelt also makes an appearance, of course.
November 21, 2019
A look at two pioneering figures in forestry and conservation. They came from completely different backgrounds. Muir, who founded the Sierra Club and protected Yosemite was self-taught, a poor immigrant and skeptical of institutions. Pinchot, who founded the U.S. Forestry Service was raised in wealth and interested in how institutions and community could be beneficial. He advised Teddy Roosevelt and help Olmstead create the forests at Biltmore. A really good look at what it was like when our land policies were being invented.
September 17, 2022
The book has some very interesting information, and informative mini-biographies on the 2 men. The book isn’t very cohesive, the timelines jump and intertwine in a way that’s a little harder to follow.
If I was purely looking for a book about Muir and Pinchot’s complicated relationship, I would probably would have been disappointed, as that was not a large portion of the book.
I listened to this book because it’s an interesting topic that I’d like to learn more about, and it was free on Audible to boot.
Random tidbit, the Audible reading or “performance” was the best I’ve ever heard.
If I was purely looking for a book about Muir and Pinchot’s complicated relationship, I would probably would have been disappointed, as that was not a large portion of the book.
I listened to this book because it’s an interesting topic that I’d like to learn more about, and it was free on Audible to boot.
Random tidbit, the Audible reading or “performance” was the best I’ve ever heard.
May 15, 2023
One of the better audio books I have selected in a while off the free Hoopla platform through my local public library. It was actually on my list to read when I found it. That rarely happens. And author John Clayton's retelling of the relationship/rivalry between long-time favorite of mine John Muir and U.S. Forest Service founder Gifford Pinchot met my expectations. Clayton ponders in his epilogue whether statesmen like Muir and Pinchot are walking among us now who can solve the pressing issues of the day: Namely climate change. I hope so.
November 11, 2019
Took me a long time to get through this because it wasn’t super exciting and it was a little all over the place in terms of chronology. However, I learned a lot about the West, National Parks, and public lands in general from reading this history of conservation/preservation/forestry in the late 1800s. The highlight of the book is certainly that you personally get to know John Muir and Gifford Pinchot. Muir is so interesting and a Californian, which makes this book a clear Megan pick.
September 27, 2021
Less ‘new’ than I had hoped author John Clayton provides a solid and competent review of many familiar aspects of Muir and Pinchot’s respective careers and the growth of forestry science in America. The author’s efforts to tie in other public land movements near the end of his work seemed hurried and not fully explored, almost as if he realized too late “oh yeah, this other related stuff was going on too…” Overall, an okay read.
February 28, 2022
Anyone who loves our national parks and history will love this book because it traces the development of an important element of our country. By comparing and contrasting John Muir and Gifford Pinchot, the reader becomes familiar with the conflicting forces that were in play at the creation of our park system. This book will give the reader a greater appreciation for what we have today and a renewed commitment to preserving it for future generations.
February 24, 2022
Preservation vs Conservation is not a black and white conversation and neither did Muir or Pinchot espouse wholly either idea. This book tells the story of how one mentored the other and how both impacted the natural history of our country. A worthy read for the insight into each naturalist's thoughts and processes.
November 22, 2023
Very easy to read, an in-depth look into the influence that Gifford Pinchot and John Muir had on our policies that have shaped public lands (parks, forest reserves, etc). I particularly like how the author focused on their relationship and differing views and how they informed and supported one another.
September 29, 2025
Definitely interesting to read how Muir and Pinchot influenced each others’ legacies. But it was more about them the creation of America’s public lands.
With the first half of the book about their lives before collaborating together, it felt more like a double biography than a story of National Forests.
With the first half of the book about their lives before collaborating together, it felt more like a double biography than a story of National Forests.
February 24, 2020
This wound up being so much more than a story of a rivalry between two environmental pioneers. Clayton presents a story of how America's public lands were created and how competing and complementing ethics drove the public debate on how the government was meant to own and manage lands.
September 12, 2020
Interesting information but the books structure hampers the author’s purpose. It starts off as a biography of both men, then a history of the formation of the national park and then party politics. At times it reads like a textbook taking one out of the narrative.
April 24, 2021
The first half of this book consisted of biographies of John Muir and Gifford Pinchot, and was quite good. The second half of the book dealt with early interactions between Muir and Pinchot, with too much background detail, and was quite boring.
June 29, 2021
Hard to understand in places, slow in places. But the gist is we need to preserve wild public lands, and people and politics will never be on the same page. I hope our country, and it’s wild and public lands survive in spite of its people fighting over it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews