Go Back  Fodor's Travel Talk Forums > Destinations > United States
Reload this Page >

Arches/Canyonlands vs. Zion/Bryce

Search

Arches/Canyonlands vs. Zion/Bryce

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 24th, 1999 | 06:32 PM
  #1  
Jimmy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Arches/Canyonlands vs. Zion/Bryce

We are planning to spend 2-3 days in Utah
in early May.
1) Any recommendations on spending that time
in Zion and Bryce Canyon vs. Arches and Canyonlands?
2) How bad would we feel if we skipped the
Natural Bridges?
Thanks.
 
Old Feb 24th, 1999 | 08:07 PM
  #2  
Geoff
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
First, you can't really go wrong. All of these places are amongst the most scenic in the whole US. Personally I prefered Arches first and Canyonlands second, although my mom likes Bryce first, Zion second. You'll enjoy all of these, but for me it was being able to climb around so much in Arches that did if for me. Zion and Bryce's formations tend to be more brittle and good for view, but not scaling them.

PS By all means make it 3 days. If you've got only 2, do only one of the four. Better to really see the place in depth than feel rushed.
 
Old Feb 25th, 1999 | 02:27 AM
  #3  
Larry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
As previous poster said, you can't go wrong. There never is 'enough' time to see it all. I also prefer the Moab area - Archer, Dead Horse Point & Canyonlands. Don't worry about missing Natural Bridges. Only 3 main 'bridges' & 2 can not be seen well without significant hikes. I'll try sending more info direct.
 
Old Feb 25th, 1999 | 06:35 AM
  #4  
Bob Brown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
There is indeed a lot to see in the area of south Utah. Three days will give time for a good start, if you put in long days!! It is hard to say which one of the parks is the best. People have different views and opinions.

I love Bryce because of the intricate spires and delicate colors. Arches is very nice also, but in the summer, I suggest an early start and a siesta in the middle of the day -- 2PM or so.

Zion is interesting, but you are looking up from the creek. The Great White Throne hike up to a hidden canyon is interesting if you are not afraid of heights. The trail is somewhat exposed on ledges.
I had fun at Natural Bridges because we walked down to the creek. We got to go along shelves carved by water in the walls of the canyon, run up and down ladders, crawl over rocks, and generally had fun doing it. I certainly was no teenager either -- pushing hard at 60.

I guess of the various ones, I would put Natural Bridges lowest on the priority list. But it is like selecting among diamonds.

Also I think the impression that one gets is a function of how one sees the area. At Bryce there is a great hike out almost to the Sinking Ship and then back by Tower Bridge to the lodge area. Then there is a walk back to your carat the trailhead unless you have a shuttle set up with someone. Some people think I am nuts for taking a long hike in the hot sun. But I would not have it any other way until I get too infirm to do it.

And while you are in the aea, don't forget Cedar Breaks and Capitol Reefs. I would rate Capitol Reefs below Bryce and Arches, perhaps equal to Canyonlands or a shade lower. Cedar Breaks is carved into the west side of the same plateau as Bryce and in the same limestone formation. It has a similar appearance, but the outcropping is smaller.

If you want to enjoy the area fully, you might consider a geologic cross section map. Then you can follow the geologic formations as you drive along and increase your knowledge of this fantastic area came to be.
 
Old Feb 26th, 1999 | 04:00 AM
  #5  
Paul Rabe
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I've been to all five national parks in Utah, twice apiece, as well as Natural Bridges and Cedar Breaks. I concur with the above statements, either Zion/Bryce Canyon or Arches/Canyonlands will be wonderful.If forced to pick (as you are) I would recommend A/C, simply because Canyonlands can be enjoyed in different ways. All four have wonderful scenic overlooks and places to hike to; Canyonlands also has four-wheel drive roads and boat tours.

I also agree that Natural Bridges is NOT worth a special trip; the one bridge you see pales in comparision to Arches.
 
Old Feb 26th, 1999 | 06:21 AM
  #6  
Bob Brown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I guess my interest in the Bridges was the contrast between the way they were formed and the way the arches were formed. The bridges were carved by running water; Arches NP is mostly the result of wind erosion. Also the differences in the Kayenta, Wingate,
and Navajo formations that provide Mother Nature the opportunity to do such wonders leaves me in awe. The last I read, professional geologists were still trying to figure out Upheaval Dome in Canyonlands. But what gorgeous places.
 
Old Mar 21st, 1999 | 09:49 AM
  #7  
Dave
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wherever you go, take the Park Ranger tours. They are free walks and talks by knowledgeable people, and most informative. We plan our days around the tours.
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement -