The Globe and Mail: B.C.’s Gwaii Haanas named top park

[I]n a survey of 55 national parks in the United States and Canada published in the July-August issue of National Geographic Traveler magazine[:]
No. 5. Chaco Culture National Historical Park, NEW MEXICO (Score: 72 out of 100)

The long, unpaved access road pleased panelists by keeping this archaeologically rich site untrampled. “Its remote location means Chaco Canyon remains a relatively genuine experience. It is still possible to envision the Anasazi life and find quiet moments of solitude.” Caveat: “Nearby town is incredibly littered.”

—–

The survey ranked six Canadian parks in the top 16. The magazine credits Canada’s conservationist approach and relatively low visitation to its parks for the strong showing. …

Three hundred experts in sustainable tourism and park management evaluated the parks for the survey.

Destination Scorecard: National Parks @ National Geographic Traveler

No destination rated 90 or above (“unspoiled and likely to remain so”)….

#14 Mesa Verde National Park
COLORADO (Score: 63)

Panelists disagree on Mesa Verde’s condition, from “well-managed” and “marvelous interpretive walks” to “serious wildfire problems and damage; archaeological heritage in danger; reduced aesthetic appeal.” The gateway, Cortez, “has a true Western feel.”

—–

Why Canada?

Of these 55 parks, only ten are Canadian, but eight of them score above average. Sixty percent make it into the top quarter of the scoring range, versus a paltry 22 percent for the U.S. What’s going on?

Obviously it helps to be northern. Parks with short seasons suffer less tourist trampling. All four surveyed Alaska parks did well, too. But there’s more to it. By law, Parks Canada must first protect the environment, whereas Congress demands the U.S. National Park Service protect nature while also promoting outdoor recreation, dual mandates that can conflict when too many park-lovers show up.

Last, says one U.S. panelist, “Canadians in general take their government’s role in preserving parks more seriously.” In short, they’ll spend some money. “U.S. parks are now forced to be more self-sufficient,” agrees a U.S. recreation ecologist, “whereas Canada has maintained better funding.” Apparently, you get what you pay for.