Humans, keep out.(Scan)(best national parks )

A few weeks ago, the National Geographic Society announced its list of the best national parks in the U.S. and Canada. Published in the Society's Traveler magazine, the list draws on a survey of 300 "expert panelists in such fields as park management, archaeology, and historic preservation." Traveler rates not only the parks but also the charm and beauty of nearby gateway towns. The results defy common sense.

The assembled mandarins have decided that the single "best" national park in North America is something called the Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site (say that fast, twice). The enormous, rugged reserve on British Columbia's far north Pacific coast does indeed look like a beautiful and fascinating place. But don't make travel plans just yet: The "park"-a wilderness area with a handful of Indian inhabitants--has no developed recreational facilities. You'll need a sizeable income if you want to visit. Even deep discount airfares are about $1,000 per person roundtrip from major population centers, and once you're in the area you'll need to charter a float plane to really get in, for another $800 or so per head. Not surprisingly, only about 3,000 people explore the park each year.

What about National Geographic's "best" American park? Try Wisconsin's Apostle islands National Lakeshore. Having been there I can pronounce it to be little more than a network of rocky islands studded with lighthouses. While the area makes a worthy--if driving-intensive--weekend trip from Milwaukee or Minneapolis, only a dedicated lighthouse buff or boating enthusiast could ever find more than a weekend's worth of activities there. No wonder National Geographic notes that the park "is not over-visited."

It appears that inaccessibility ranks atop National Geo's list of criteria for park "greatness." Only one of their top-rated parks--the Point Reyes National Seashore near San ...