If you can only visit two which ones would it be. We are a senior couple and we love to hike, but no rock climbing or super strenuous/dangerous stuff.

What say you?

Capitol Reef and Canyonlands probably have the best combination of features that you'd see in the other three. Arches and Moab are nearby too. That would be my choice.

I'd go with Zion and Canyonlands. Their close proximity reduces travel, plus a great choice of easy to moderate hiking trails.

malenurse said:

---

I tend to agree with Critic, but another alternative is Zion and Bryce Canyon because they are polar opposite formations.

In Zion, you are mostly at the bottom looking up and Bryce you tour around the top and look down. The are also located close together and can be visited from one central location.

---

I haven't been to the others, but did just this last year. My wife and I enjoyed both, but Bryce won for overall beauty.

We stayed in Springdale, UT, which is the gateway town to the southern entrance of Zion. We picked it because it was closest to Vegas (our base) and the options located in between Zion and Bryce were limited in our opinion.

You drive through a significant portion of Zion to get to Bryce, which is a 2 hour drive from Springdale. We did 1 full day at Bryce. If we'd had more time in the area, I would have done a second trip.

Springdale is a surprisingly good town, we really liked our hotel and had some good meals there.

Zion- overall most spectacular and beautiful with the towering cliffs. Some moderate day hikes. Lots of more challenging hikes. Near town of Springdale. (and not too far from St George).

Arches- very different from Zion. Obviously lots of Arches, w the delicate arch the most famous (moderate hike to get there). Beautiful LaSal mtn range in the background. Near town of Moab.

Bryce- very unique hoodoo rock formations.

Zion/Bryce are in Southwest Utah. Canyonlands and arches in southeast Utah near Moab. Capitol Reef in central Utah. Even though as the crow flies Zion and arches don't seem that far away from each other, It's a pretty good amount of driving between the two given the geography in that area- no straight shot road between the 2 areas!

So it all depends on how much time you have. If you want to do two parks that are relatively close together, I would recommend Zion and Bryce as your two choices. If you want to do two parks in two different areas, then I would recommend Zion and Arches as your two choices.

Agree with others on the Zion/Bryce combo. Plus you can see so much in each park from the overlooks and shorter hike. I flew into Vegas and it's about a 2.5 drive to Springdale.

Alternatively, if you do Arches/Canyonlands, it's more hiking based in my opinion. For that trip, I flew into Salt Lake and it was a long drive to Moab. But there are flights to Moab to look into.

Thank you all. Just looked on YouTube at some hikes in several parks. They all look great but probably out of our abilities. Arches fits our travel route the best coming in from Denver. I guess Canyonlands would be the logical second.

texas_ute said:

---

If you go the Arches and Canyonlands route, don't overlook Dead Horse Point State Park. It's very close to the entrance of canyonlands national Park and has fantastic views and some very short, easy hikes with great overlooks.

---

100% agree! Dead Horse Point State Park is an excellent add-on.

turfman80 said:

---

I'd go with Zion and Canyonlands. Their close proximity reduces travel, plus a great choice of easy to moderate hiking trails.

---

I think you mean Zion and Bryce, correct? Zion and Canyonlands are on opposite sides of the southern portion of the state with about a 4.5-hour drive between them.

txags92 said:

---

turfman80 said:

---

I'd go with Zion and Canyonlands. Their close proximity reduces travel, plus a great choice of easy to moderate hiking trails.

---

I think you mean Zion and Bryce, correct? Zion and Canyonlands are on opposite sides of the southern portion of the state with about a 4.5-hour drive between them.

---

Actually, I meant Arches and Canyonlands. I'm old…

To me, Bryce is the most spectacular, but at the same time, the least enjoyable. I went in August, so I didn't hike much and just took the busses from point to point. It was so crowded, that you'd have to wait in line at each stop and could usually squeeze onto the 5th or 6th bus.

That trip, I also when to Capital Reef, very few people. Much more laid back.

The next trip I went to Zion, I enjoyed it, but I probably could have gotten more out of the visit. I did hit Goblin Valley State Park on the way back to SLC.

Several months ago, I went to Arches and Canyonlands as part of a work trip. We all work remotely, so it was a chance to get a couple of teams together and have some fun. All nine of us enjoyed Canyonlands better than Arches. Also, Dead Horse is an easy stop to make on the way out.

Our family (kids 13, 12, 7) just did a NP trip in May which included Zion, BC, Belly of the Dragon, Kanab Sand Caves, Toadstool Hoodoos, Antelope Canyon, Horeshoe Bend, Grand Canyon and Hoover Dam.

We all agreed Bryce Canyon was the favorite. We did the Under the Rim trail to Peekaboo Trail to Navajo Loop Trail. Ate lunch on the canyon floor amongst the massive Hoodoos. Just an awesome experience.

Some great new ideas here, places I am now looking up. Keep it coming! Great info.

BSD said:

---

Bryce Canyon is one of the most unique places on earth. Pair that with Zion, and you've got yourself a great trip. Same with Arches and Canyonlands. Either way, you can't go wrong. Just do two trips and add Capitol Reef to one of those. And don't forget Little Wild Horse Canyon and Goblin Valley as a stop along the way.

---

Little Wild Horse Canyon is sooo awesome.

I just got back from Arches and Canyonland. I loved Arches. A very unique park. The biggest problem is that there are a ton of people there. You have to have a reservation to get on, but I found it wasn't hard to get one.

Canyonlands definitely felt like there were a lot less people there, but it's also way bigger. To me, it felt like you need a four wheel drive vehicle to really see it all. Although, it has trails, it would take forever to hike them all.

Zion and Capitol Reef are my favorites of the five

We've been to Zion four times - twice in spring and twice in winter and it is 100x better in winter....only caviat would be unless you're wanting to hike Angel's Landing (can be icy) or the Narrows (cooooold)

BSD said:

---

Bryce Canyon is one of the most unique places on earth. Pair that with Zion, and you've got yourself a great trip. Same with Arches and Canyonlands. Either way, you can't go wrong. Just do two trips and add Capitol Reef to one of those. And don't forget Little Wild Horse Canyon and Goblin Valley as a stop along the way.

---

Make sure you have plenty of gas in between start and stop destinations if you stop by Goblin Valley. I coasted on fumes in our rental at night on I-70 thanks to drafting behind a big rig.

Ok I know this is insane but we're probably going to do it -

We are in Salt Lake City and/or Provo a few times a year for work but have never managed to make it south to see the parks.

We are thinking of departing Heber City (near Provo) next week around 7 am and trying to do Bryce and Zion, then back to Provo by 11 pm for a flight back to Dallas the next day out of Provo. The goal would be to arrive at Bryce by 11 am and Zion by 3 pm. 2ish hours at each, maybe 3 at Zion.

Any specific advice on this? Other than "dude yall are nuts"?

That's nuts! A lot of Bryce can be seen at the overlooks. There will be lots of crowds in Zion - like waiting to get a parking spot and waiting for the bus etc takes a lot of time. And thats a long drive from Zion back to SLC. Maybe just pick one?

Not very feasible. It'll take you an hour to get into Zion and get parking. Then the shuttle line. I admire your enthusiasm, but I'd just stick to Bryce. Or Great Basin NP and see the ancient bristlecone pine forest.

My advice would be to pick one

What you're proposing is like going to thr Louve, putting on running shoes and running through it.

Definitely nuts!

That's a ton of driving. And then keep in mind you are going to be hitting the Parks at very hot times in the day, in the hottest time of the summer.

Would also recommend just doing one park.

Also consider hitting the road earlier, by 6 AM. That way you can at least get to your destination before it gets blazing hot.

texas_ute said:

---

Definitely nuts!

That's a ton of driving. And then keep in mind you are going to be hitting the Parks at very hot times in the day, in the hottest time of the summer.

Would also recommend just doing one park.

Also consider hitting the road earlier, by 6 AM. That way you can at least get to your destination before it gets blazing hot.

---

I didn't even think about the heat. So yeah, my Great Basin NP rec would be a good idea since you're at elevation. It's pretty unique to see hundred of trees that are thousands of years old.

amg405 said:

---

Ok I know this is insane but we're probably going to do it -

We are in Salt Lake City and/or Provo a few times a year for work but have never managed to make it south to see the parks.

We are thinking of departing Heber City (near Provo) next week around 7 am and trying to do Bryce and Zion, then back to Provo by 11 pm for a flight back to Dallas the next day out of Provo. The goal would be to arrive at Bryce by 11 am and Zion by 3 pm. 2ish hours at each, maybe 3 at Zion.

Any specific advice on this? Other than "dude yall are nuts"?

---

Bryce Canyon can be done fairly quickly, if you're just wanting cursory views from some of the main viewpoints. That's not a bad visit, though if you want to see more of it, or see the hoodoos from down below, you'll want to hike, which means spending more time there. 2 hours is very optimistic to see the park though, especially if it's crowded and you have to wait for parking (one in, one out) at each viewpoint.

But Zion is a different situation. There's usually a line to get in the Park for cars, which can take time, there is limited parking, and you cannot drive yourself to the various points in the park for views, hikes, etc. You are at the mercy of their shuttle bus system to get to anywhere other than the Ranger station and gift shop. And the shuttles can take a while, especially if there are crowds and you have to wait for 2-3 busses to fill up and drive off, before you are able to get on the next one.

3 hours is not enough for Zion National Park.

One option for Zion that I just remembered is that you can rent e-bikes and cruise around the park that way. I don't know the cost, but there were many people doing that on the times I've been there. It saves waiting on shuttles to get around.

Aggie87 said:

---

One option for Zion that I just remembered is that you can rent e-bikes and cruise around the park that way. I don't know the cost, but there were many people doing that on the times I've been there. It saves waiting on shuttles to get around.

---

That's my favorite way to see the park. If you're on the shuttle, you have all the walls around you that obstruct your view. The e-bike view is a clear 360 the whole ride. It's awesome.