Explaining the Ratings in Viewpoints
During our travels, we’ve managed to visit 29 national parks across the United States and Canada. As a result, we’ve developed a compulsion to rate these parks as they relate to each other. It’s impossible to avoid certain biases with these ratings and reviews: Our personal preferences and experiences play a large role in how we reach our conclusions. That said, we are not secret shoppers; we never approach a park with our sole intent being to review it. We just enjoy putting our experiences into context and hope the system we’ve developed accurately represents our opinions over time. What follows is an explanation of each category and how it fits in with our ratings.
An important note: We also want to acknowledge that the national parks do not exist for the sake of our entertainment. Each one is a complex ecosystem, formed by natural forces we do not understand and shaped by a rich history involving the indigenous peoples who once did or still do consider them sacred, as well as the colonists who claimed the land and the National Park Service that protects it now. Our Viewpoints here reflect a narrow-minded view—simply, what it's like to visit these parks today as tourists looking to get out into nature.
Overall
What tier we feel the park belongs in.
TIERS
TOP-TIER PARK
HIGH CLASS
MIDDLE GROUND
UNREMARKABLE
SHITE
Tier lists are all the rage, and we're not completely immune from them. That said, we at least wanted to make this tier system our own.
Note: We have not yet visited any parks that are "shite," as the Scottish-born John Muir might have said.
Nature
A reflection of the park’s natural beauty, including everything from grandeur to wildlife.
RATINGS
INCROYABLE!
MIGHTY FINE
RESPECTABLE
MEDIOCRE
SHITE
There’s an argument to be made that nature is the only score worth incorporating. We won’t go that far, but it’s quite close. This category includes several factors we think are key to determining a park’s draw:
General Beauty: How do the worst/ugliest/more boring areas compare with the best?
Grandeur: How magnificent are the points of interest?
Diversity: How many different features does the park have?
Uniqueness: How common are those features?
Wildlife: How interesting is the wildlife, how much of it is there, and how rare are the species?
Experience
From trails to crowds, how enjoyable is it to be at the park?
RATINGS
INCROYABLE!
MIGHTY FINE
RESPECTABLE
MEDIOCRE
SHITE
Our experience at a park matters. This rating is independent of weather or freak events that may ruin our day. It takes into account the quality of available activities and general park experience. How cool are the trails? Is there kayaking or rock climbing available? How many people do you have to fight through to get to those activities?
Visiting
How easy is it to visit this place?
RATINGS
INCROYABLE!
EASY
REASONABLE
DIFFICULT
IMPOSSIBLE
Ease of access is not a major factor in our rating, but it is one worth including. If a great park is sitting a few hours drive from a major metro area, that matters. If a park’s infrastructure is robust and allows for quick access to incredible points of interest, that matters. If a park is located in wilderness and not accessible by car, that matters too. Not everybody has the time or ability to take a flight on a float plane and hike for 30 miles to see a waterfall.
Bonus: Stupidity Index
How dumb do you have to be to die here?
STUPIDITY INDEX
THE STUPID WILL THRIVE
THE STUPID WILL BE FINE
THE STUPID MAY GET HURT
THE STUPID ARE IN DANGER
THE STUPID HAVE NO CHANCE
There is a direct correlation between the popularity of national parks and the number of idiots who visit them. When we say "idiots," we're referring to those people who, despite the plethora of information the National Park Service makes available to visitors—including signs that say something like "hey, this thing could straight up KILL you"—still treat these places like Disneyland or the San Diego Zoo. As more people enter Yellowstone, it is inevitable that among them are folks who believe the bison are tame, docile creatures and the geysers are fun showers that smell a little funny.
With this in mind, we wanted to create a guide for the amount of stupidity it would take for someone to get injured or killed due to their ignorance. The Stupid will be fine in a place like Gateway Arch National Park in St. Louis: If somebody manages to die there, it is not the park’s fault. At the other end of the spectrum, The Stupid have no chance in a place like Alaska’s Gates of the Arctic National Park, because visitors actually need survival skills (or a guide) to go there.
Bonus: Catsby's Take
How our cat spent her time there.
CATSBY'S TAKE
IT WAS EXCEPTIONAL
IT WAS GREAT
IT WAS DECENT
IT WAS FINE
IT SUCKED
You didn’t come to Truck • Trailer • Cat and expect to not hear our cat’s opinions, did you?