> Every day hike in Zion Canyon is kind of like waiting in line at Disney World. You’re waiting in line in a magical place, but you’re still waiting in line. You ask a dead-eyed park ranger to recommend you a less popular hike, and he spits in your face. There is no such thing as a less-popular hike in Zion Canyon. You will wait in line on the trail and you will be grateful you piece of shit.<p>Yeah, you can safely disregard anything this idiot says. This is simply not true. When I did the Zion traverse we went a full day without seeing people at one point, never waited in line. If you want to the Disneyland version, yeah it'll be crowded.
With most parks the crowds quickly disappear once you are 2 miles in. That's the case pretty much all over the world. I remember in Iceland there were these huge crowds at a water fall close to the bus stop. I hiked 3 miles in to another similar waterfall. There we had less than 10 people.
> With most parks the crowds quickly disappear once you are 2 miles in.<p>And those crowds just aren't present in the early morning. Nobody gets up early enough to be out at sunrise. I'm not worried about saying this out loud and spoiling it either, because most people just don't like to get up that early.<p>I've been to gorgeous places all over the US that are absolutely packed by 10am or noon. Those same places are completely empty, and even more beautiful at sunrise. I live near one of the best mountain biking places in the southeast US, and regularly do 20-30 mile rides starting at sunrise, and only occasionally see a runner or another cyclist. There's just nobody out in the early mornings.
Also, when the weather isn't perfect. I love taking a hike when it is chily, rainy, or even cold and snowing.<p>All it takes is proper gear.
Power law:<p>The number of people decrease as a power of the distance you travel away from popular spots
The NPS has an even more specific version of this: the overwhelming majority of Americans visiting a park <i>will not walk more than 1/4 mile from their vehicle</i>. So everything is designed to reinforce this behavior as much as possible, which (a) means that the majority of people get a richer, more dramatic and/or more informative/eye-opening visit (b) the backcountry is left alone, both for the other animals that live there and for the rare humans who will head out there.
Yep! In my experience it's about 3 miles; people turn around in between 2 and 3. By 3 miles you're guaranteed solo.
I just went to Zion last week. There was an hour long wait to get on the shuttles due to crowds. The River Walk trail to the Narrows was so congested you would bump into people. The Emerald pools was packed with people despite being a 500’ climb. It’s a very popular park during spring break.
I've been to most of the places he said were bad and I totally agree that you can ignore what he says. Shortly after talking about how bad Zion is for the crowds he says that Capitol Reef is also terrible. I thought Capitol Reef was great. It's a lot like Zion but without the crowds.<p>He also dismissed a few parks that I think are ideal for families with young children. Petrified forest has lots of interesting short hikes that you can do with small children. They also have a really nice ice cream shop with great views. The fact that you can do short hikes to amazing views is part of what makes Arches nice. If you want a longer hike drive next door to Canyonlands which is also fantastic.
This article was either written to be clickbait, or written by the kind of person who can find a way to be unhappy in any situation.<p>The article is safely ignored.
It's been over a decade since I went, but I went there (and Bryce Canyon) twice during the winter. You practically have the whole park to yourself!<p>With Bryce Canyon, it's best to go before snowfall, though. Once the ice sets in, they shut down a lot of the trails.<p>Also went once to Arches in winter. Awesome (except again, a lot of trails too slippery).
I think it really depends what time of year you go. Zion is beautiful, but when I went it was early in the season and a lot of the popular stuff was closed and it was very crowded everywhere. On the same trip I did all 5 parks in Utah, and I easily rank Zion as my least favorite, even though people seem to love it the most. I would definitely go back though.
There's also another entrance to Zion park in another area called Kolob Canyon. It's a few hours drive from the main entrance, far less developed, and there's never anyone there. Still very beautiful, though.
I have gone in the summer once and it was busy but still an amazing experience. I have been twice in the winter/off season (they clear the roads right after snow!) and we had the park basically to ourselves. Was absolutely fantastic.
Agreed. I've been to zion many times and the rangers have never been anything but helpful. A while back a ranger recommended a hike with few people and now I do it every visit.<p>It <i>is</i> crowded, which is a bummer, but still a great experience.
It's 30 years since I visited Zion. So beautiful. The best part of a trip that included Lake Powell, Yosemite and the Grand Cannyon, though those were all great. Being British, basically no-one here has ever heard of it, so I'm always keen to tell people about it. The Park Rangers were great, too.<p>Mind you, your President seems keen on deterring foreign visitors of all sorts, so those visitor numbers are sure to decline. So that's a win, I guess.
Zion? Rent a bike at the entrance. They'll take them on the shuttle into the park. Ride them back to the entrance.<p>Magical.
I think this might be rage bait.
Yeah, this was an off article that half I completely disagreed with, a quarter is probably accurate, and the other quarter I don’t know anything about.<p>Zion is amazing. One of my favorites. We found a great dry riverbed trail and saw no one for nearly two hours. My kids loved Arches. Had we known? We would have planned longer. Bryce we thought was meh, unpopular opinion, I’m sure. Canyonlands I can’t even remember.<p>Smokey Mountains is beautiful as well. Mountains, a ghost town, beautiful forest, an Ectomobile from Ghostbusters II, and motorcycle from Terminator 2. Seems pretty ideal.<p>The Grand Canyon review is spot on though.<p>Edit to add: Dry Tortugas is amazing. Take the last sea plane and revel in being lost at sea with 20 other people for serval hours. It’s Unlike anything else.
> The Grand Canyon review is spot on though.<p>The review of the Grand Canyon annoyed me the most:<p>```
Can you hike in the Grand Canyon? Yes, technically. You can walk along the rim, but the view won’t change; same damn canyon on one side, same damn parking lot on the other. There are trails that go down into the canyon, but they’re a trap
```<p>So you can't even hike there, except of course for the hike that you can do.<p>"They are featureless steep inclines formed into endless switchbacks, and when they finally end, there’s nothing to do except go back up"<p>That is what hiking is! Granted, usually you hike up and then back down. And I wouldn't call the hike down into the canyon "featureless". Honestly, it sounds like this person just doesn't really like hiking, which if fine it's not for everyone, but that is just what there is to do in most national parks.
> The Grand Canyon review is spot on though.<p>It may be factually accurate, but nevertheless, hiking down to the river and back up again was one of the most amazing hiking experiences of my life, and there have been quite a few of those.
We once did a hike from Chamberlain's Ranch down. No one else for 10+ miles until we reached the switchbacks at the end. It really depends on where you go.
Just like many popular places it depends when you go. Last time we were there it was off season and a bit cold but pretty empty.
I think it's mostly to tongue in cheek.
must be a seasonal thing. i’ve never seen nobody but have also never seen disney.
no one is an idiot. no one has that identity. people do not have more or less value. we are all worthy of respect.
someone can act with idiot tendencies, but they are NOT an idiot.
His first choice of a ~"good"~ correction:worthwhile national park is Gateway Arch in St. Louis.<p>When I got to that part, I was sure this was rage bait.
I live in South Carolina, about half an hour from Congaree National Park.<p>It's not a place you'd drive across the country to see, but it's beautiful and highly worth a visit. There are some freaky trees -- with knobs of roots that stick out from the ground, like nothing else I've seen. The place is kinda creepy, as if you're about to be attacked by zombies, and I love that.<p>There is a two mile elevated boardwalk which takes you around some of the most scenic areas of the park, and further hiking trails which branch off of that. There is also a river that goes through the park, and it's quite atmospheric in a canoe.
I knew this guy was not worth listening to when he wrote "a solid five hours away from absolutely anything else you might want to see or do". I live in Charleston, two hours away and at the heart of the Lowcountry, one of the most historically fascinating and beautiful places in the world. And a couple of hours in the other direction are the Blue Ridge Mountains!
I’m from the Lowcountry, live in the Upstate now. Kayaking through Congaree is one of my top memories as a Boy Scout. Incredibly beautiful in a way you don’t get most anywhere else. Feels like you’ve travelled back in time to some Jurassic age going through the tree covered channels. Just keep an eye out for the snakes!
I also live about half an hour from Congaree. I wish it was a state park…it’d be on everyone’s list of “coolest state parks.”<p>It doesn’t have the same wow factor as other national parks, but it’s a special place for sure.<p>See you at the fireflies!
I live about 2 hours from it. Is there any other hiking to do on the park other than the boardwalk that the Author mentions?
GCNP is my absolute favorite park but it is definitely hard to get to know. Much of its charm is below the rims. I've done 4 multiday hikes from different trailheads on each rim as well as a 15 day dory trip on the Colorado. There a number of truly magical places you encounter than cannot be seen from the rim. In the midsts of some of the harshest terrain, there are grottos in sidecanyons filled with ferns, trees, and a stream. Waterfalls gushing from caves high up on the canyon wall. Deer, bighorn sheep, and birds of all types. Geologic features that go back as much as 1.2 billion years. Fossils that come from some of the earliest examples of life on this planet. Artifacts of people who lived there a thousand years ago. None of this comes cheap but if you put in the effort, you experience something that will change your view of the world.
What I love about it is that more than any other park I've visited, it defies description. I adore Yosemite and Joshua Tree, for example, but I believe they can be understood from photography. Grand Canyon feels like it can barely be understood in person, like just the idea of it is too big or complex to hold in your mind and that is thrilling for me.
Advice for folks who like National Parks, but wish you could experience some of that nature with fewer people around:<p>Many National Parks are surrounded by a National Forest. National Forests surrounding National Parks are often similarly beautiful. I mean, they're beautiful in a similar way, due to being in roughly the same location on the map...same climate, same fauna, same flora, same geology, though not necessarily on as grand a scale as what they built a fee gate in front of. They're free to enter, often allow overnight camping, and provide an experience mostly free of other people. Of course, there are plenty of reasons to go to the Park, too. I never miss a National Park if I'm going to be anywhere near one. But, the US also has incredible public lands that haven't been elevated by a "National Park" designation and they get far fewer visitors, and if your biggest complaint is "too many people", your solution may be just outside the Park.
+100 to this. Because Yosemite keeps getting called out, I would also mention that Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Park is right next to Yosemite, just as spectacular in many ways (e.g., Rae Lakes Loop), and far less crowded.
Colorado is a great example of this. Rocky Mountains national park is good but a bit of a tourist trap and there's so much more to see in CO than that.
> Can you hike in the Grand Canyon? Yes, technically. You can walk along the rim, but the view won’t change; same damn canyon on one side, same damn parking lot on the other. There are trails that go down into the canyon, but they’re a trap. They are featureless steep inclines formed into endless switchbacks, and when they finally end, there’s nothing to do except go back up, which will be just as boring but three times as hard and might kill you.<p>I’ve seen enough. From the Midwest so was looking forward to a takedown of the dunes (or something witty craptowns esq). but dunking on the GC for being a canyon?<p>The “non superlative” is largest canyon by volume
We went a lot to the US in my teenage years. I have been to the Grand Canyon two or three times (you start losing counts at some point).<p>One time we were there with our family and my aunt/uncle + kids. We hiked down the canyon because my dad was sort of the group leader and he goes on such adventures without necessarily thinking it through.<p>So we went down with a small amount of water and food. I heard sometime years after that you have to pay to go down the Grand Canyon, but this was in the nineties and it was a quiet part of the Grand Canyon, not much to do. We hiked down, stayed inside the canyon for a bit to eat and drink and then we went up again.<p>And that's where the differences started. My dad was still undeterred and went up in high speed like it was nothing. We were young, fit teenagers and for us the climb was more than usual, but pretty doable. The rest of the adults... not so much. At least one family member was crying, others were swearing (without swearing, polite people) about the predicament my dad put us in.<p>I am not sure why I am telling this, I guess... go in prepared?<p>The Grand Canyon was nice, but I never loved it. I think my expectations were pretty big because it's so well-known, so it was a bit anti-climatic. I really liked Monument Valley, there was virtually no other tourist when we were there and it was stunning, even better than in the Lucky Luke comics [1] that we read as a kid. As I teenager I also loved White Sands. In contrast to the author I did really like Petrified Forest.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Luke" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Luke</a>
The NPS has large signs posted at the Bright Angel and Kaibab trailheads on the south rim warning visitors about the dangers of the trail, the heat, the steepness, the lack of shade. It is made abundantly clear that even a modest hike requires conditioning, water, appropriate shoes, and protection from the sun. They even have rangers patrolling the trails assessing hikers they pass and questioning those they believe are going to have trouble. Unfortunately, they can only recommend, not enforce. With all that, people run into difficultly and have to be hauled out. Sometimes, they die. As Ron White has said, you can't fix stupid.
The only time I saw the Grand Canyon was when we briefly stopped while I was helping a friend get her car across the country. It was January, no one was around, and patches of snow dotted the rim. Quite a beautiful sight. But we noticed a poster on a bulletin board detailing how a medical student who had run the Boston marathon had somehow gotten lost on a hike and died after running out of water. It was particularly shocking because my friend had known the woman who died since high school in New England, but had not heard the story until we were reading it on that poster.
I also did one of the hikes to the CO river in the 90s with 3 friends when we were in college. We got off to a late start so jogged down a good deal of the way (dumb). We carried a 1 gallon water jug each (not even close to enough). We had no extra clothing (dumb). Two of us (me being one) made it out that day. The other two didn't. A group of smart hikers with water filters and iodine tablets found them belly up on the path in the direct sunlight. I'm certain they would have died if the hikers didn't give them tablets, water and emergency blankets. Man we were dumb.
If you are fit, you can absolutely do this. In fact, you can go all the way to the other rim and back (rim-to-rim-to-rim). The current record is sub 6 hrs by Ultrarunner Jim Walmsley. [0]<p><a href="https://fastestknowntime.com/route/grand-canyon-crossings-az" rel="nofollow">https://fastestknowntime.com/route/grand-canyon-crossings-az</a>
Sounds like an ideal spot for earning Darwin Awards.
Agreed. I've been to many canyons, and the Grand Canyon is truly a marvel - it's stunning, it took my breath away and still does. Just go and look at it for 15 minutes? That's all you can muster? "Featureless" steep inclines? No mention of the biodiversity? What?!<p>The Grand Canyon is in the rare club of places I've been that surpassed my high expectations.
I say to anyone who asks me about the GC "it will completely surpass any expectations you have of it, even if you take this into account". Nothing can prepare you for the scale of it, even if you've been there before and/or been in the Utah canyon parks. No photo, no video can capture the experience of being on the edge of it nor being down in it.
Back when I was younger and challenges were mostly mental, I did participate in a group hike to the bottom of the Grand Canyon (via the Hermit trail). Yes, the hike back up was tough, but we had two nights' camp out at the bottom, right by the river, in what for us Canadians was pleasant August type climate, while we had started in a bit of snow at the top (late October) and the rest day was beautiful.<p>During the hike and stay at the bottom we encountered about half a dozen other people. It really was grand.<p>In Yosemite, all you have to do is outhike the "Reebok hikers" as we called them back then. An hour's serious walk gives you relative solitude.<p>And in Zion, last time we were there, a couple of us did <i>not</i> do Angels Landing. Instead we went to another spot equally high up where it was peaceful and quiet, and took telephoto pictures of the others on Angels Landing (note: I've been up there and it's awesome, but in that terrain a crowd sounds scary).
You may be referring to the Observation Point hike at Zion. It starts off with a 2k ft high switchback route. But at the end it will put you smack dab in the middle of the canyon higher than Angeles Landing (and a bit safer, less crowded hike). And you still have a stunning view of the canyon and far beyond.
> In Yosemite, all you have to do is outhike the "Reebok hikers" as we called them back then. An hour's serious walk gives you relative solitude.<p>You actually don't even need to do this if you park somewhere other than Yosemite Valley. For example, Tenaya Lake is nice and not that far in on Tioga Road.
There's a statistic that floats around which may be apocryphal - something like 90% of visitors to national parks don't get more than a 5-15 minute walk from the parking lot (and some literally never leave the car).<p>National parks are <i>huge</i> and you can quickly literally get lost forever in them (which is an actual danger, stay on the trails!) if you're willing to walk.<p>Some of them have very obvious "goals" to see (the geyser, the half-dome) which of course are high traffic, but others are beautiful "all over" and taking the treks is worth it.
His experiences mirrors most people's I know. They all told me - go to it if you have the extra time, otherwise The southern Utah parks are <i>much</i> better.
* zero documentation<p>* dev team is a ghost town<p>* literal tons of boilerplate just to bootstrap single, empty container<p>* hasn't had a proper release[1] in <i>ages</i>.<p>Unless I'm completely misinterpreting you, I'd say this isn't a good look for the "largest repository by volume"<p>1: of water
If you haven't tortured yourself on the Devil's Corkscrew switchbacks on the Bright Angel Trail at the Grand Canyon, on the hottest day of summer, have you really National Parked??<p>All joking aside, I disagree with the author regarding the Grand Canyon. Havasupai Gardens -- the verdant oasis at the bottom of the canyon, where you can camp and recharge -- is one of my favorite places I've camped. There are areas for wading and swimming, and the sounds of the night creatures is eerily beautiful.
We've only hiked a little bit down the canyon when we were last there (which was back in 2009, sadly), but I also strongly disagree with the author. It may not be the longest, deepest or widest canyon in the world, but if you actually go there and take a look at it, you'll see for yourself why it's called the Grand Canyon. Then again, if this article keeps some easily bored/jaded people away from the national parks, all the better for the rest of us!
I hiked and camped for three days in the Grand Canyon about 10 years ago and it was one of the high points of my life. The sheer beauty of the massive space was transformative in the way I see the world. How small we are, how big it was. I know statements like this seem overly dramatic but my time there is still something I replay in my head.<p>So when people dunk on the GC, I always just tell myself how lucky I was that my experience was so wonderful.
We drove to the Grand Canyon in a rental car from Vegas. "We" that is my old parents and I. We don't gamble, drink, or do hookers, so we didn't really like Vegas very much. (Stop! Hold your horses. It's a joke. I know there's other things you can do in Las Vegas. It's a joke.)<p>We arrived at the canyon before sunset and the setting sun hit it so beautifully from above. The colors were incredible.<p>We were gonna just spend the night and drive back first thing in the morning. But then we said to ourselves, we don't like Vegas, the Grand Canyon looked awesome. So we went back the next morning and spend more time there, just driving along the rim and stopping every now and then to let the impressions sink in.<p>With the sun on the opposite side now than the night before, it looked totally different.<p>This was all part of a longer road trip, and the Grand Canyon was definitely one of the highlights.
The problem with the Canyon is that (1) what's really interesting is seeing the whole thing top to bottom and (2) the really spectacular views are when you're partway down, with the best locations depending on the time of day. However, because it's such a challenging hike, most people don't get those experiences. FWIW, Havasupai Gardens is only about halfway down, but because it's the last water tap before the river, it's kind of the last somewhat readily accessible point.<p>I half agree with the author's take on Yosemite. The valley really is ridiculously overcrowded but the view also is amazing. The situation here is a little bit like the Grand Canyon in that there's lots of amazing stuff but it's more work to get there, mostly in terms of a lot of time on foot. The good news about the Sierras is that except for the amazing big wall stuff in the Yosemite Valley, Sequioa Kings Canyon is basically just as nice and the traffic situation is much better.
As someone who doesn’t hike or camp, I didn’t really enjoy the Grand Canyon.<p>When I was 18 my dad thought it would be cool to take me there for a week. I suggested we just stop there briefly, then go skiing in Colorado, which he accepted.<p>We got to the Grand Canyon and it was so big that it didn’t even look real. I was pretty much done after 30 minutes, so was my dad. He was glad I suggested the Colorado option, as he wasn’t sure what we’d do there all week.<p>I’m glad I saw it, so I’ll never wonder, but I’m also glad I didn’t try and make it into more than it was, as a non-camper.
I like hiking but absolutely not camping. I had a similar experience. IMO the canyon is too wide for its width which creates a similar effect to it just being a valley. I found it much more spectacular to stand on pretty much any mountain in the Alps.<p>Funny enough driving up to the grand canyon there are some arms of it that in essence narrow, deep cracks in the ground. I absolutely loved those!
I-15 out of Vegas hits a small part of Arizona on the way to Utah, and the freeway runs up a river gorge - it's an amazing drive and in no way comparable to the Grand Canyon - but it has its own charm.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj0dvrBiuX8" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj0dvrBiuX8</a><p>Maybe I'll tell my kids this is the Grand Canyon so I can go to In-n-out ;)
I'm from the West Coast. My national park experience includes Yosemite, Volcanoes, Arches, Zion, Bryce, Redwood, Crater Lake, and Lassen. (I've technically also been to the Grand Canyon, but it was so foggy, it was more like going to the Sears Portrait Studio - you couldn't even see the canyon.)<p>I used to say "I've never been to a national park and wondered why it's a national park - they all have an obvious and immediate majesty to them."<p>Then I went to Pinnacles, and Acadia. I'd honestly forgotten about Pinnacles until I started writing this comment. It's also one of the newest parks, so even though it was underwhelming, it didn't impede my belief in park majesty.<p>Acadia, though, just doesn't have the magic. It's an island, which is strange because that means there's a town in the park where people live. Honestly I think I liked the coffee shop I had breakfast in more than the rest of the park. There's a summit you can take photos from and a hike that goes along the rim of the island. That seemed to be it. As a West Coast boy, it didn't have the same specialness as the other parks I've seen. Even my Mainer friends say "we don't know why Acadia is a park - there are so many other places in Maine that are at least as pretty."<p>If this guy thinks Yosemite, Zion, Arches, and the Grand Canyon are among America's worst parks, he's bonkers or trolling.
> they all have an obvious and immediate majesty to them.<p>"Grandeur" is not the only criteria for nice national parks. I'm from the east coast, and while all of the breathtaking views in California were amazing, after a few years of living there I began to get frustrated that I couldn't find anywhere "cozy" to visit during the weekends. Some locations along the Russian River probably came the closest, but the jagged rocks and coniferous trees still didn't manifest the sort of "warm and snug" feeling one gets while river tubing along a mountain river in the Blue Ridge mountains. Temperature deciduous rainforests are actually quite rare across the planet, and particularly when the leaves change colors, it's a sight to behold.
Strong disagree on Pinnacles being underwhelming. The California condors acord woodpeckers and alone are worth the visit. The caves are also very cool if you go when they're open.
> Even my Mainer friends say "we don't know why Acadia is a park - there are so many other places in Maine that are at least as pretty."<p>I believe that private ownership of land is the biggest answer.
State parks are where it's at.<p>But love the Gatlinburg aside. It's like Myrtle Beach, but worse. The Blue Ridge mountains have amazing natural beauty for miles in every direction. So many great towns too - Blowing Rock, Boone, Asheville, Maggie Valley, (hopefully Chimney Rock will be back on that list someday). Why anyone would pick Gatlinburg to visit is beyond me.
If you want to go to Great Smokies, do it from the east side, not the west. The east side can be charming (I really liked Bryson City). Pigeon Forge? What a tourist trap hellscape.
> But love the Gatlinburg aside. It's like Myrtle Beach, but worse.<p>Yeah Gatlinburg is a strange place, that one stuck out to me too. I described it in my comment as like a touristy beach town but small and not in a charming way. That main strip with all the t-shirt and other tourist shops haha, it reminds me so much of Daytona Beach when I lived there as a child.
I live in Sevier county about 30 minutes from Gatlinburg. It is indeed a peculiar place, unlike anywhere else I can think of. We almost never go there despite being so close. The best restaurants in the area I recommend to tourists are actually in downtown Sevierville (which is small and quaint), not Gatlinburg or Pigeon Forge.<p>That said, I've been to various theme parks around the world, and Dollywood is probably my overall favorite. We go quite a few times a year; it's great for both kids and adults.
Gatlinburg is not my thing... but is significantly better than Myrtle Beach.
Really? Agree to disagree. At least in MB I can bike around, get in the ocean, and pig out on seafood. It's not classy, but at least it's cheap. I would never fly there, but as a weekend trip from Charlotte, it's not terrible bang-for-buck at all. Though I'm sure nostalgia from going there frequently as a child is coloring my view.<p>What do you prefer about Gatlinburg?
Sorry - significantly better was overreaction from my part. My view of Myrtle beach is somewhat muddied by the reason I was there in the first place. Was in GA for a wedding, was going to go to FL, but couldn't due to a hurricane and ended up quickly shuffling to Myrtle Beach. Felt like a memory of a town. I do have a coworker who recommended me some good spots, but not sure if I will ever make it back there <a href="https://maps.app.goo.gl/EbWrjJ92qgV3vx598" rel="nofollow">https://maps.app.goo.gl/EbWrjJ92qgV3vx598</a>.<p>Gatlinburg is maybe the ultimate tourist trap. Was hilariously enough also around there for a wedding.<p>I can't really argue for either as destinations. Both of these places I don't think I would go over other available options.
Gatlinburg for the pancakes; Asheville for the beer. (Asheville is legitimately a beer mecca. Must be the water.)
I haven't been in decades but there seemed to be the world's highest concentration of candle shops. Maybe people are looking for fancy candles.
The ironic thing about the "best" national parks these days is that they are so overcrowded the experience can be genuinely miserable. I would gladly take a "sub-par" or boring park where I can actually be alone with nature over sitting in a two-hour traffic jam in Yosemite or Yellowstone just to see a tree.
I did a second visit to yellowstone during the winter and it absolutely ruled. Most of it is closed to only commercial operators but the Lamar Valley area is fine if you can get a vehicle with studded tires.
TL;DR. Explore Yosemite on foot.<p>I don't know Yellowstone, but the situation with Yosemite is a bit complicated. There are basically two congestion issues:<p>1. Congestion in the park itself.
2. Traffic.<p>Yosemite is huge, but the only places that are really built out are Yosemite Valley (where most people go) and Tuolomne Meadows (where a lot of climbers go). Most of Yosemite is backcountry and just accessible by foot. So what happens is that most people go to one of these two places (which, to be clear, really are spectacular) and then stay within a few km radius of the parking lot, hence the crowding. But once you get outside that, it's quite empty. I've done 50-odd mile loops in Yosemite and seen basically nobody [0].<p>As far as traffic goes, there are very few entrances to the park. If you're coming in from the bay area, you're probably coming in through the Tioga Road/Big Oak Flat entrance. As a result, even if you want to be in some part of the park where there are very few other people, you can end up having to wait in line to enter with the giant mobs of people who want to go to the Valley. The fix here is to enter super early or super late, when there basically is no line.<p>[0] <a href="https://educatedguesswork.org/posts/northern-yosemite/" rel="nofollow">https://educatedguesswork.org/posts/northern-yosemite/</a>
> Look: there are better canyons. There are better canyons just as accessible as the Grand Canyon, just as nice to look at, and much more interesting to actually exist in. Go to Bryce Canyon. Go to Zion Canyon (in the off season). Go to the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. Go to Canyonlands!<p>I totally agree. Canyonlands is in my opinion the single most amazing national park. Parts of it is hard to get to, but even locations readily reachable in a car has amazing views that change. And there are basically no crowds.<p>Bryce Canyon has good hikes but the fact that NPS runs a bus in the park tells you about the crowding situation. It’s still good if you don’t mind crowds.<p>Zion is also not bad but the crowds are worse than Bryce Canyon. The mile or so of the Virgin River is like a manmade water park.
> Cuyahoga Valley: There is nothing wrong with Cuyahoga Valley. Statistically, you’re from Ohio, so why not?<p>In college, I took an interim elective course on geology of the national parks. On the first day of class, the professor asked an icebreaker for students to say which national park they lived closest to. I said Ohio - Cuyahoga Valley.<p>Well some snot nosed boy scout confidently piped up that there were mostly certainly no national parks in Ohio, and the professor agreed. This is a deep personal grudge that I still hold to this day.
The first substack I've actually considered subscribing to. Apparently I am a manchild who enjoys this sorta writing, and few others do. :D
The best part about all the comments here is that they all seem to be missing that this is pretty obvious satire.
First I am hearing of Gateway Arch national park, and I am very confused why it's a national park?
IIRC the story is it basically predates when they figured out exactly what a "national park" is supposed to be as distinct from other kinds of national-whatever, and it stuck.<p>Similar story for the one in Arkansas I think. Both would probably have some other designation if they were created today.<p>[EDIT] Oh LOL I was very wrong, that was just created. What I wrote was basically true of Hot Springs, not Gateway. Yeah that's a WTF.
In form it approximates a classic "park" more than the sort of national parks you and I probably think of. I like the idea of diversity in our national parks and public lands. Some could focus on history and education, others on naturalism and ecology, others could mix and match as needed. Urban national parks seem like a fine idea and a way to encourage urban populations to explore more public lands outside of their cities too, eventually. To build a nation of parks and gardens would be laudable.
Because Congress and Trump said so in 2018.
Reminds me a bit of this: <a href="https://www.theregister.com/2002/05/13/welcome_to_sheppey_the_uks/" rel="nofollow">https://www.theregister.com/2002/05/13/welcome_to_sheppey_th...</a><p>Here's the original link on the Wayback Machine. Some foodie has taken over the domain, since: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20060217042905/http://www.sheppeyscum.com/" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20060217042905/http://www.sheppe...</a>
>[about the Grand Canyon] It looks like this. There, you’re done. You don’t need to go.<p>I don’t understand how this person can have gone to all these places and be so cynical about them. The above quote is the kind of reaction I get from people who don’t get out much when talking about the National Parks.
In addition to managing these incredible places, the park service also runs some pretty cool museums. A rainy-day favorite in Massachusetts - Lowell textile mill: <a href="https://www.nps.gov/lowe/index.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.nps.gov/lowe/index.htm</a>.
Calling Yosemite bog standard beauty in California is a pretty wild statement. California definitely punching above its weight for natural beauty and Yosemite is overcrowded but the valley is still one of the more breathtaking places in the world IMO.
Very entertaining post. I’ve only been to a small number of national parks but I do agree they aren’t especially nicer than some of the non-national park places I’ve been. My favorite is probably Point Lobos (a mere “state” park).
"Gatlinburg is a bizarre theme park of a town..", he does have a point about Gatlinburg, it's a strange place. Imagine a touristy beach town, like Daytona Beach FL in the 80s before they kicked out the spring breakers, but small yet not charming-small like a Colorado ski town just.. small. The smokey mountains in general is similarly off, lots of Native American owned tourist stores but filled with confederate flags for some reason. It's still a beautiful drive though.
I would have appreciated the writer sharing more about their personal context.<p>"The problem with the Grand Canyon is you drive up to it, go 'ooh! ahh!' for maybe a maximum of 15 minutes, and then you’re done"<p>Are they disabled? I don't know how to interpret it.
In case the author sees this:<p>> none of the possible drives you might to do get there are especially scenic<p>that should say "might do to get there" not "might to do get there" (and also "none...is especially" not "none...are" but I would not go out of my way to point that one out)
The Grand Canyon is so magnificent. I thought it was all marketing until I saw it.<p>Glacier is my favorite. I thought The Grand Tetons were incredible. Yosemite is incredible but def touristy. Yellowstone is probably appropriately rated and a good place for the family.<p>I thought Joshua Tree was a waste of time but I am more pro mountain and less desert.
I drove from New Orleans to NYC through the Blue Ridge Parkway once. I thought it was extraordinarily beautiful. Also drove through the north of Arizona from LA back to NOLA. I was surprised how northern the terrain looked. All alpine forest and no cacti or anything even though when you take I-10 from Florida to California it's all cacti, canyons and mountains. Very beautiful in its own right. The scenery in New Mexico could easily shatter minds from Maine down to Florida on the eastern seaboard. It's eerie even during the day when you're driving through that Martian terrain.
> Look: there are better canyons. There are better canyons just as accessible as the Grand Canyon, just as nice to look at, and much more interesting to actually exist in. Go to Bryce Canyon.<p>Ironically, Bryce Canyon isn't actually a canyon.
Don't forget about state parks. Many of them are GORGEOUS. Many of them have fantastic facilities. And most of them are less popular than NPs.
I went to Congaree last week. It was pleasant, I would go again, we ended up hiking a bit over 5 miles on a beautiful day. Bugs were not an issue. Also saw Fort Sumter and USS Yorktown, went to a drive through Animal Safari, saw Biltmore in Asheville and drove on the Blue Ridge Parkway. Throw in a few state parks, saw a movie, had a few good meals and it was a pretty good road trip / van camping experience for my daughter and I.
Thank you for this -- I needed a laugh today. I do have to say that we visited Zion in Nov and it was amazing -- beautiful weather and no crowds. I think it's all about timing.
I actually strongly recommend Mammoth Caves National Park. They also have nice trails on the outside (within the park).<p>The caves are grand. But just keep in mind: You will not see stalactites/stalagmites there. For <i>that</i>, there's a cave tour right outside of Mammoth Caves (I forgot the name) - it has plenty of them.
I was hoping to see his thoughts on the Everglades. His hate is strong.
Capitol Reef is ridiculous. There's no fish.
It's refreshing to read writing which is not AI generated
Seems like the author simply does not like traveling to see things?<p>Most of the article seems like minor annoyances that you take for granted.
This is either satire or this guy genuinely doesn’t know nature.
Seems like most people have not realized this is satire.
“I’m pretty content to say that North America absolutely mogs the rest of the world in national parks. “<p>This is exactly what a European friend remarked to me years ago. He thought us Americans were a bit unaware of just how good we had it compared to the rest of the world.
I mostly agree with this, but... if you're a hiker or a trail runner the alps really are amazing, and the infrastructure is far better than in the States. Once you get outside of really built up places like Yosemite Valley, the trails in the US basically are out in the middle of nowhere and so you're carrying all your stuff. For example, if you do John Muir Trail, there's basically nothing between Muir Trail Ranch and Whitney Portal, so you're looking at 100+ miles of carrying your own stuff.<p>By contrast, many European trails have huts/refugios every 10 or so miles, so you can stop and get a coffee or a meal, or even stay the night. This means that not only do you not need to carry a lot of food you may not even need to carry your own shelter, which lowers the weight considerably. There is some stuff like this in the US, for instance the High Sierra Camps [0], but it's not the norm and it's not cheap (~200 USD/night).<p>[0] <a href="https://www.travelyosemite.com/lodging/high-sierra-camps" rel="nofollow">https://www.travelyosemite.com/lodging/high-sierra-camps</a>
Alps is probably the only real "mogging" of the US (and things like the Himalayas, etc) - we have "one" real impressive mountain range and it has an entirely different feel, being relatively isolated from humans.<p>Europe and Asia have had tens of thousands of years to make alpine mountains inhabitable, and it shows.<p>But outside of that, the US has amazing diversity partially because it's basically an entire continent, but also because of an accident of settlement and weather patterns that large swaths of the west were available to preserve.<p>There was an article recently about how in the UK it's all about <i>restoration</i> because everything is or was inhabited, but in the US it's about <i>preservation</i> because so much was simply never developed at all.
For many of us who backpack in the US for long distances and many days at the time, the remoteness is <i>exactly the point</i>. The <i>lack</i> of those huts/refugios is one of the primary drivers for why OP's friend said what they said.
Well, we kind of started them. Easy to be the best with a head start
See also: <a href="https://nationalparkobsessed.com/reviews-of-the-us-national-park/" rel="nofollow">https://nationalparkobsessed.com/reviews-of-the-us-national-...</a>
If this is ragebait, kudos
Who is making it so crowded?
whether or not you agree with the author's conclusions, most of his rationale behind them is spot on. yeah GC is majestic and amazing from the bottom up, and if you find the hidden gems within the park then you are golden. but the average experience is a solid “meh.”<p>was disappointed to see the great sand dunes omitted from the list of the worst. people obsess over those and every time i’ve gone it’s been a unquestionably miserable experience, not to mention a general letdown
Gateway arch national park is by far the worst in the nation and it's not even close!<p>You're unironically <i>very</i> likely to get robbed on your way there, back, and even within the park itself.<p>St Louis is one of the saddest, most run down, ghetto cities in the USA and it's not even close. I'm pretty sure Detriot and possibly even Baltimore mog it.
Came here to confirm that Congaree was on the list.
Now do Canada!
[dead]
I was pleased to see Congaree on here. It really does suck that bad.
[flagged]
HN has never been a forum about just technology, that’s what makes it great. From the guidelines:<p>> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
It's a snarky Monday morning read. I think it's hilarious.
On Mondays it’s pronounced Hiker News
Please stay in your concrete box and never leave.
Went to one park, in the pre-madness epoch, near San Francisco. Enjoyed it. Bought the national guide book, intending to make sure I visited as many more as possible and get my little book filled with stamps. Went home to Canada.<p>Oh well, visiting one park was fun. I’ll go and enjoy the superior Canadian and European parks instead (the ones in countries that welcome visitors, and whose parks don’t generally charge more for tourists), maybe even further afield. But the guide book’s single stamp will be lonely for the foreseeable.