Why are the Midwest and deep south so bland? >Gateway Arch >Indiana Dunes National ParkWhat a joke
Gulf Islands National Seashore is basically a national park
>>2644867Not only are they flat, but 99% of the land is private property, so you can't go exploring.
I thought Cumberland Island was nice. Okefenokee is cool as well. Swamps aren't bland dude.As far as I know the reason the south doesn't have national parks is because by the time national parks were coming into being, the whole region was already very settled and there wasn't much true wilderness left.
Arkansas has some nice places. Petit Jean and Mount Ida were beautiful when I visited
>>2644867The primary reason for national parks is nature preservation, except for Gateway Arch which the city of St. Louis wanted to do to attract more tourism. Some are going to be more beautiful than others. Some of the National Forests are just as cool as the Parks so don't overlook them. Lurk around /out/ too because they know a lot of good spots
>>2644867Not sure "distance to nearest national park" is a good metric for blandness.
National forests
>>2645131National seashores.
>>2644867i loved indiana dunes, partied hard, had a riot of a campfire and a hell of a crossfade
sleeping bear dunes is beautiful
This map doesn't include state parks or national forests/wildlife refuges. Minnesota for example has an extensive state park system where it's impossible to be farther than 30/40 miles away from at least one no matter where you are in the state. Are all of those parks as impressive as say, Voyageurs (the only real National Park in Minnesota?) No, but many are better (Itasca, Gooseberry, Tettegouche, Cascade River). A lot of states have no or little National Park presence but a lot of state parks or other ways of having protected and open nature sites categorized.
>>2644883Shhhhhhh. I like my seclusion on those white sand beaches.
>>2644867wait till i'm a billionaire and reforest the entire state of ohio and fill it with buffalo like the good ol days
