Top 10 U.S. National Parks That Shouldn't Be National Parks

NOTE: Only four of these are ones I think actually shouldn't be parks, the others are just ones that I think might be better as other types of protected areas due to the fact that they were likely not given park status for the right reasons. This video was recommended by many so it's not all my fault.

Subscribe for more national park content.

America's 63 national parks are beautiful places, but there are some that might be better suited as National Recreation Areas. From The Gateway Arch to Indiana Dunes, here are the top 10 places that shouldn't be national parks.

[NationalParkWild]

I know this is a controversial topic, but it was highly requested. I hope you all enjoy it. Also, sorry for the typo at #7.

[Coelacanth_yes]

The only place I think they absolutely should get rid of as a national park is gateway arch it works better as a national monument or national landmark

[msiphys]

The main point of the National Park status is to protect and preserve unique features, many happen to be natural landscapes or wildlife, from destruction or commercialism. Wind Cave hosts some of the most plentiful and ultra rare boxwork formations here in North America. For those of us who love and adore caves and spelunking, Wind Cave is absolutely worthy of NP status.

[charlessapp]

I think it would be great if Wind Cave NP and Jewel Cave NM and Custer SP would join to become Black Hills NP. The Black Hills are just so awesome. Although I have not been able to do it yet, the Mickelson Trail is just fantastic. The Mickelson Trail is WAY more deserving of NP status than Gateway Arch because of the great scenery, and it has a lot of history. (It used to be the Burlington Northern Black Hills line).

[cathyp.]

I’m not going to argue that Indiana Dunes is on the same level of grandeur as Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon but it has some super biodiversity. That’s worth protecting, especially when you look at all the development around it.

[andrewstravels]

As an Ohioan, honestly it was kindove hard to hear about Cuyahoga Valley. Yes, I can definitely agree that it’s not the number 1 national park, but I fell that it’s unfairly judged because it’s in between 2 cities and it just cannot stand up to western parks. Personally I think that it’s unfair to compare it to western parks and Cuyahoga Valley is unique in its own way. In fact, Cuyahoga Valley has many things that other National Parks don’t have, like a train that goes from one end of the park to the other, farms, and even a concert venue. You just have to look at it from a different lens compared to other National Parks.

[michaelkontos]

I cannot disagree more on Indiana Dunes. In my opinion, Indiana Dunes is one of the most deserving national parks, if not THE MOST deserving. The entire purpose of a national park is to preserve the land, biodiversity, resources, history, etc. of the area. It was originally proposed to be one of the original 4 national parks alongside Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Grand Canyon by late 1800's ecologists in order to preserve the unique landscape and biodiversity. It was not designated a national park which allowed factories and development to move in, destroying most of the original dunes and wetlands.

The tallest dunes were mined for their sand which was made into glass. Factories and factory towns destroyed the wetlands and native grasslands, which are now critically endangered in the Midwest. The original black oak savanna ecosystem located in the park today is globally endangered. Today, Indiana Dunes is home to more biodiversity than all of Great Britain, and more species of birds than the Everglades. The glacial bogs and fens are critical for migrating birds and there are very few left.

Furthermore, Indiana Dunes is the birthplace of modern ecology. The national park preserves original European homesteads, and showcases how destructive industry and development is to nature. There are sections of the park that were once acid pools and are now healthy ecosystems once again. Forgive this park if it seems fractured and surrounded by industry. It was once intact but it wasn't protected when it needed to be. The dunes used to be much higher and plentiful but over 80% of them were destroyed. It needed to be a national park from the get go and thank god it finally became one. I would even argue it should be a world heritage site given the ecology, history, and biodiversity. I take issue with these videos saying certain places should be demoted because they aren't pretty enough. We should argue for more national parks and not demean the ones we have and suggest they should lose protection status. This video shows me that you only view the parks based on aesthetic and recreation. There's a reason Indiana Dunes is at the bottom of everyone's lists. It wasn't protected when it needed to be.

[thesamarawaters]

I disagree with one major premise: the point of a national park first and foremost is not its recreation, it is its protection. Those distinctions are less about the parks so much as our view of the term “national park”.

Nonetheless, screw the gateway arch.

[blurefr]

I went to the SL Arch years ago when it was still a NM and it was good. When I learned it became a NP site I was bewildered. To me it's nothing more than a city park with a cool monument in it. Every city has a monument, yeah this one has history but it's not National Park worthy at all.

[ChrisAmirVado]

This is a good list, could you please make a video of sites that SHOULD be upgraded to National Park status? That’d be great content to watch

[PurpleandGeauxld]

Will agree with you on Gateway Arch, Biscayne, Congaree, Biscayne, Indiana Dunes, and Hot Springs. All politically motivated park decisions, even some that the NPS didn’t support for a change in status. Cannot agree with your other 4 though. Might ask you to consider replacing with Dry Tortugas, Petrified Forest, American Samoa, and Pinnacles. Those don’t seem to deserve the same status as Yellowstone, Acadia, Yosemite, Arches, etc.

[MrSRArter]

The only National Park that I don't think should be one is the The Gateway Arch, that should be a National Monument instead.

[elliek]

I'm pretty sure they are national parks so that others cannot build on them or mine them. The reasons you don't think they should be national parks is because you "don't think there's much there"?

[dankelsey]

I am from Idaho. There is currently a discussion to make Craters of the Moon a national park instead of a monument. The effort is driven totally by the local community around Arco to get tourist dollars from those folks to stop while travelling through to
Yellowstone and Grand Teton. Totally the wrong reason to upgrade to a NP. On another note- Congaree is one of my favoirites and although may not be as scenic as other NP's it does protect one of the last remaining untouched bottomland floodplains in the country. As a state park/recreation area, it may not continue with that protection. Well thought out list. I enjoyed the topic.

[craighughes-pszt]

I just gotta say... that I agree with you completely! So many former National Monuments have been upgraded to National Parks in the last 20 years it is ridiculous. Some you could make a good case for, like Joshua Tree or Great Sand Dunes, but others, like Pinnacles National Park or the one you mentioned in St.Louis, should definitely not be National Parks. I also liked your idea of combining Wind Cave National Park into Custer State Park.

[Wilderness-Will]

I don't think you'll find a single soul who'll argue your points on Gateway Arch. It made a fine memorial but its redesignation as a Park kind of cheapens the entire Park designation. Indiana Dunes was the least deserving of the National Lakeshores to be upgraded to a Park, but if they *had* to upgrade a Lakeshore, I reluctantly understand why they chose that one. Pictured Rocks, Sleeping Bear Dunes, and Apostle Islands all would've struggled with the infrastructural demands that come with Park status.

I'm gonna argue Hot Springs though. Even if it isn't the most picturesque Park in the system by any means, I think the history of that place alone warrants its status. It's been designated a Park for more than a century, and believe it or not it's literally the first piece of land the federal government ever formally protected-- it got its first protections in the 1830s, even before Yellowstone. The hot springs themselves were seen as so unique that they were worth protecting. That act alone set a precedent that helped facilitate the development of the National Forest and Park services in the following decades.

[Rushbabies]

Glad we have a national park enthusiast who's willing to say this 😂 those top 4 are head scratches and most people like to pretend they're great despite being such subpar places.

[alexconrad]

For Wind Cave, I've thought the idea of combining it with Custer is a good idea for a while. Custer's natural beauty, especially in the Needles area, is unparalleled in the region, and even if some of the rocks there aren't in their natural state (looking at you Gutzon Borglum), they are a unique area in some of the most interesting mountains in the US.

You could even combine Jewel Cave into that as another annex and rename it Black Hills NP, or Ȟe Sápa NP, and tell more of the indigenous rights to the land (But that issue is too much to get into in a youtube comments section).

[cemberinks]

Choosing Wind Cave is surprisingly controversial, but I can see how you would pick it due to visual preferences. Wind Cave is a very special spot: one of the only mixed grasslands on the planet and the only cave currently to have specific rock formations like boxwork and frostwork. But if these things don't interest you (clearly an interest of mine lol), I can see why it doesn't seem worthy of NP status 😊

[kevincoughlin]

A "day trip" NP? Tourist destination? Close to steel mills is a disqualifier? You seem to have a skewed idea of what a NP should be. Unique geology, last unique area (like the dunes) are some of the reasons for a NP. Would you downgrade Mt. Rainier NP because of it's proximity to two large cities? Okay Guadalupe Mountains NP, you could make an argument for it, but what about the endangered species there. There are many reasons for each of the NP. Gateway NP isn't historic land, although the courthouse across the street is ( and it's part of the park) but it does commemorate the westward expansion. Maybe St. Joe of the west side of the state would be better but yes it does attract tourists. Maybe re-read the mission of the NPS and the criteria for NP status. Then read the enabling legislation to see if the selection was appropriate and if the NPS is staying true to its mission of preserving the area for future generations.