I was originally thinking that much of the concern over saturation and contrast could be attributed to the differences between wide-gamut environment OP is working in (display and print) and our own sRGB displays. Having seen the original, however, I am more inclined to think that the post-processing isn't dong justice to the scene and the original file. There is a fine line between emphasizing and exaggerating. When the nature gives you an apple, do not make a lemonade.
Marked areas, from left to right:
1. If you look at the forest in the lower left corner of the original file, you'd be able to see it is green, though in shade, and warmed by the setting sun. Look at the PP file and you'd think it's a forest fire, it is so red.
2. The snow in the shadow, indicated by the arrow, has a very believable muted color, present in other areas of the image as well, and the transition to the patch of light just underneath it is gradual. In the PP file, the color turns into an almost grotesque pink-ish, with a sharp transition, and you can't find a similar color around (int other words, it looks out-of-place).
3. There is practically no yellow color in the original, rather various shades of orange. Look at the encircled area in the PP file and the very saturated yellow suddenly appears.
4. The most pronounced difference in contrast can be seen in the top cloud, which becomes almost white. In other words, while the original has gentle transitions between various hues and shades of orange, the PP one goes into a stark contrast of yellow and white.
Then again, there are obviously enough fans of turning it up to the n-th degree, so who am I to disagree?
EDIT: Just to clarify, the left image is the OP's original image
