Is there an overrated unit of the National Park System, one that doesn't quite meet your criteria for being among the properties carrying the tag of national park?
Such a question can spur much debate, as what is highly valued by one might be scoffed at by another when talk comes to national parks. It's hard to quibble with Yellowstone, Yosemite, Great Smoky, or the Everglades being part of the park system. But are there one or two units that perhaps get more attention than they deserve, simply because they are included within the system?
Was U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn correct in his belief that members of Congress salt the park system with some units that really don't believe to be included, other than as political bouquets tossed to their home-district constituents?
Tell us, travelers, should there be 401 units in the system today, and if not, which would you discard?