What' the difference between a national park and a monument?

While you can find similar landscape in the two if nearby, you have to pay usually to get into a national park whereas a monument you don't.  There is a lot more people in a park than a monument.  So what is the attraction of a park?  Well, for those of us who may occasionally hike, but are not hikers a park is designed for ease and convenience.  Hike averaging less than 3 miles (although there are some longer).  You drive on pavement up to the attraction, short little walk and there you are.

A monument you will drive 57 miles on gravel and some parts, 7 miles the brochure said but correct that to 17, and you get one site.  Then you have to hike 8 miles one way through rugged terrain to view the really cool stuff that you drive to in a park.

So, if you occasionally hike - but aren't a hiker; occasionally four-wheel - but aren't a four-wheeler; adventure - but aren't an adventurer (I have just described myself and am in jeopardy of having Subaru reposes my car for not living up to the image), then you may want to opt for the more crowded national park and pay the $10.

The pics from yesterday was from the monument, these are from the park and on the way to the park:

          Follow the leader 

& balancing rock

 

The rocks are so fragmented it seems like they could fall away at any moment


and they often do...

  
The immensity of the landscape is awe-inspiring.  I wonder what brings people to these lands and what they think when they leave?


I am in Grand Jct, Colorado and trying to decide where to go.  The southland is on fire with temps, the north has tornado, thunderstorms and flashflood warning.  I'm thinking I should have maybe chosen Canada to do a cross-country trip!