Go Back   Cruise Critic Message Board Forums > Ports of Call > Antarctica
 
Register here!
Forgot Your Password?


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 6th, 2009, 08:20 PM
melissa@cruisecritic melissa@cruisecritic is offline
Product Development
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 863
Default U.S. proposes restrictions on Antarctica tourism

The Associated Press and other media outlets have reported that the United States government is pushing for an amendment to the 50-year-old Antarctica Treaty, which would limit the size of cruise ships allowed to sail there and the number of passengers they’re allowed to bring ashore. (Click here for the full story.)

The proposal calls for barring ships carrying more than 500 passengers from landing sites, restricting landings to one vessel at a time per site, and limiting passengers onshore to 100 at a time. It would also mandate a minimum of one guide for every 20 tourists while ashore. Here's what's interesting, though -- these restrictions are already being followed voluntarily after being adopted by the Antarctica treaty as "recommendations" in 2007.

If the companies operating in Antarctica are already following these rules, will mandating them really help the region's fragile ecosystem? We're curious to know what you think!
__________________
MelissaP
Director, Product Development
Cruise Critic

Last edited by melissa@cruisecritic; April 6th, 2009 at 08:22 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #2  
Old April 7th, 2009, 01:23 AM
Jade13 Jade13 is online now
10,000+ Club
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 18,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melissa@cruisecritic View Post
The Associated Press and other media outlets have reported that the United States government is pushing for an amendment to the 50-year-old Antarctica Treaty, which would limit the size of cruise ships allowed to sail there and the number of passengers they’re allowed to bring ashore. (Click here for the full story.)

The proposal calls for barring ships carrying more than 500 passengers from landing sites, restricting landings to one vessel at a time per site, and limiting passengers onshore to 100 at a time. It would also mandate a minimum of one guide for every 20 tourists while ashore. Here's what's interesting, though -- these restrictions are already being followed voluntarily after being adopted by the Antarctica treaty as "recommendations" in 2007.

If the companies operating in Antarctica are already following these rules, will mandating them really help the region's fragile ecosystem? We're curious to know what you think!
Right now this is being followed so I don't see a change.

Last edited by Jade13; April 7th, 2009 at 01:24 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old April 7th, 2009, 09:41 AM
GeeDunk GeeDunk is offline
Cool Cruiser
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 724
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melissa@cruisecritic View Post
The Associated Press and other media outlets have reported that the United States government is pushing for an amendment to the 50-year-old Antarctica Treaty, which would limit the size of cruise ships allowed to sail there and the number of passengers they’re allowed to bring ashore. (Click here for the full story.)

The proposal calls for barring ships carrying more than 500 passengers from landing sites, restricting landings to one vessel at a time per site, and limiting passengers onshore to 100 at a time. It would also mandate a minimum of one guide for every 20 tourists while ashore. Here's what's interesting, though -- these restrictions are already being followed voluntarily after being adopted by the Antarctica treaty as "recommendations" in 2007.

If the companies operating in Antarctica are already following these rules, will mandating them really help the region's fragile ecosystem? We're curious to know what you think!
Went to Antarctica, in Jan., 06, aboard the Marco Polo; looks like the Marco Polo in the picture.

The accidents in the last several years cause me concern.

From my experience, the ships going to Antarctica practice very strict
ecosystem regulations.
Even more stringent than the ships going tp the Galapagos Islands.
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old April 7th, 2009, 12:54 PM
Saga Ruby Saga Ruby is offline
Cool Cruiser
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Irving TX
Posts: 1,857
Default

It surprises me that, on an annual basis, a small expedition ship has consistently experienced major damage in Antarctic waters. It boggles the mind that larger ships which are now doing "sail-by" itineraries might put the ships and their passengers in harm's way just to make a buck.

As major ice shelves break into pieces each "summer" season, and pack ice bobbles around in unpredictable places, I oppose any ship with more than 200 passengers being in Antarctic waters. The risk is too high and the rescue possibilities are too low.

As far as Congress mandating density of ships and passengers in Antarctica, wouldn't that mandate be effective only for US ships? Would the international treaties now governing Antarctica have to be amended to accommodate the US mandate?

Ruby
Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old April 7th, 2009, 03:58 PM
MMDown Under MMDown Under is offline
5,000+ Club
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 7,835
Default Safety and Preservation of Antarctica

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saga Ruby View Post
It surprises me that, on an annual basis, a small expedition ship has consistently experienced major damage in Antarctic waters. It boggles the mind that larger ships which are now doing "sail-by" itineraries might put the ships and their passengers in harm's way just to make a buck.

As major ice shelves break into pieces each "summer" season, and pack ice bobbles around in unpredictable places, I oppose any ship with more than 200 passengers being in Antarctic waters. The risk is too high and the rescue possibilities are too low.

As far as Congress mandating density of ships and passengers in Antarctica, wouldn't that mandate be effective only for US ships? Would the international treaties now governing Antarctica have to be amended to accommodate the US mandate?

Ruby
I have a greying newspaper clipping which warns of the dangers of too large ships travelling in Antarctic waters. It questions whether a large number of passengers could be rescued, under the conditions, and stated that the Chillean and Argentina Governments do not have the facilities to help rescue passengers south of the Antarctic Circle.

Being an Australian, I was surprised at "US Congress mandating density of ships and passengers in Antarctica".

Are there any US ships going to Antarctica?

Seems US Government is pushing for an amendment to the Antarctica Treaty.

Melissa@cruisecritic -

"The Associated Press and other media outlets have reported that the United States government is pushing for an amendment to the 50-year-old Antarctica Treaty, which would limit the size of cruise ships allowed to sail there and the number of passengers they’re allowed to bring ashore".
__________________
Marion
Hurtigruten - Fram - 2014 - Ushuaia to Antarctica, via Falkland Islands and South Georgia Islands. (Booked)
Princess - Ocean Princess - 2013 - Dover to Iceland and Norway, via Shetland and Faroe Islands.

Princess - Ocean Princess - 2012 - Singapore to Sydney
Fred Olsen Black Watch - 2012 - The Baltic, with Norway. Dover to St. Petersburg, via Kiel Canal.
Celebrity Century - 2011 - Auckland to Sydney

CTMA Vacancier - 2011 - Montreal to Magdalen Islands. Amtrak - Toronto to New York
MSC - Poesia - 2010 - Kiel, Germany to NY. Amtrak NY to Niagara Falls, VIA Rail Toronto to Vancouver
MSC - Lirica - 2008 - Genoa, Italy to Fort Lauderdale
Royal Caribbean - Rhapsody of the Seas - 2007 - Honolulu to Sydney
Rivers of Holland Cruise - 2003 - to Amsterdam
Alaskan Marine Highway - 2003 - to most Alaskan ports of call
Star Cruises - Superstar Leo - 2003 - Sydney to Darwin
Norwegian Coastal Voyage - Naruik - 2002 - Bergen to Kirkenes
Angelina Lauro - 1971 - Sydney to Perth. Indian Pacific - Perth to Sydney (Put me off cruising for 30 years!)

P & O - Chusan - 1970 - London to Brisbane, via Africa, India and Sri Lanka (Suez closed).
Chandris Lines - Queen Frederica - 1969 - Sydney to London, via Panama, New York and Rotterdam
Reply With Quote

Ad Sponsored By
  #6  
Old April 7th, 2009, 05:46 PM
Saga Ruby Saga Ruby is offline
Cool Cruiser
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Irving TX
Posts: 1,857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MMDown Under View Post
Are there any US ships going to Antarctica? Seems US Government is pushing for an amendment to the Antarctica Treaty.
Your point is well-taken. It seems a bit presumptuous for the US Congress to throw its weight around to "mandate" ships' passenger sizes, gross ton-weights, and land activities in Antarctica. One can only wonder if some Congressman's friend or relative got into a bit of pickle whilst on a cruise to Antarctica.

As is pointed out, Antarctica is ruled by international treaty of many countries so a unilateral "mandate" is perhaps a bit offensive to the other countries who participate in the treaty.

Ruby
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old April 8th, 2009, 10:40 PM
Senior Cruiser Senior Cruiser is offline
Cool Cruiser
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 15
Default U.s. proposes restrictions on Antarctica Tourism

I took the Lindblad/Nat'l Geographic Endeavor in February 2008.

I'd like to see the sightseeing "drive-by" passes by the large cruise ships curtailed. Their hulls aren't fortified for icy waters in any way, I can just imagine the tragedy if they run into unexpected icebergs, small or large.

Let's leave Antarctica to the smaller ships with strengthened hulls.
Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old April 9th, 2009, 11:08 AM
diebroke diebroke is offline
Cool Cruiser
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 116
Default

Where does it say that the US Congress is mandating density of ships and passengers in Antarctica?
What the article does say is that the United States government is pushing for an amendment to the 50-year-old Antarctica Treaty. If accepted by all the countries that are signers to the Treaty, it would seem to be binding on those countries.
Everybody seems to be agreeing to the voluntary rules now, but some day, a cruise line will get greedy and do something stupid.
I don't think the U.S. government is proposing these rules for the benefit of the ships that are being damaged but for environmental concerns and the safety of passengers, many of whom are American even though the ships aren't.
I think for once, the U.S. is taking responsible action.
Reply With Quote

  #9  
Old April 9th, 2009, 11:59 PM
idratherbesailing idratherbesailing is offline
Cool Cruiser
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Posts: 6
Default

I think the US government is being pro-active in requesting an amendment to the Antarctica Treaty. Antarctica is no 'Disney World" and getting there is no picnic. Travel by properly outfitted smaller ships is the best/safest means of getting there via water and the smaller the "footprint" left by man the better for the very delicate ecosystem. Limiting the number of shore landings and the number of people at each landing will and does go a long way in protecting both man and beast.
Reply With Quote

  #10  
Old April 12th, 2009, 11:57 PM
kingsbridge kingsbridge is offline
Cool Cruiser
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 75
Default In defense of large ships

I took a wonderful drive-by cruise of Antartic waters on HAL's MS Amsterdam in December 2008. We had a very experienced ice pilot, Capt. Patrick Toomey, who guided us safely through the icy waters. By contrast the Liberian Maritime Authority has just released its report on the sinking of the Explorer in 2007. The Explorer was registered in Liberia and according to a newpaper account of the official report the cause of the sinking was "Speed that was excessive to the type and concentration of ice encountered, the captain’s lack of knowledge and understanding of Antarctic ice coupled with his overconfident attitude led to the sinking of the Explorer in November, 2007." There were various other deficiencies noted in the report and the saving grace for the passengers was the good weather at the time of the sinking. It's very easy for those who have taken the small ship cruises to dismiss the large ships as unsafe, but all of the accidents in recent years have occured on the explorer ships. Maybe there are too many people attempting to land in Antarctica in any given season. They may take more risks and do more damage than those who just cruise by.
Reply With Quote

  #11  
Old April 28th, 2009, 01:11 AM
Dezi Dezi is offline
Cool Cruiser
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 22
Default

There are some places on our Earth that should not be tramped upon by any tourists. Antartica is one of them. Leave it alone!!!
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old July 7th, 2009, 02:58 PM
ACA Jester's Avatar
ACA Jester ACA Jester is offline
Cool Cruiser
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saga Ruby View Post
It surprises me that, on an annual basis, a small expedition ship has consistently experienced major damage in Antarctic waters. It boggles the mind that larger ships which are now doing "sail-by" itineraries might put the ships and their passengers in harm's way just to make a buck.

As major ice shelves break into pieces each "summer" season, and pack ice bobbles around in unpredictable places, I oppose any ship with more than 200 passengers being in Antarctic waters. The risk is too high and the rescue possibilities are too low.

As far as Congress mandating density of ships and passengers in Antarctica, wouldn't that mandate be effective only for US ships? Would the international treaties now governing Antarctica have to be amended to accommodate the US mandate?

Ruby
I disagree that the Size of the ship makes it unsafe. The size of the Captain's resume is what makes the real difference.
I took the Marco Polo (a larger ship) two years ago and the Captain had been sailing Antarctica for 20 years and the Baltic before that.
I notice it is the smaller ships that keep hitting ice. I would be curious how much experience the Crews have on these smaller "Explorer type" ships.
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old July 9th, 2009, 05:31 PM
Happy2Cruise4Fun's Avatar
Happy2Cruise4Fun Happy2Cruise4Fun is offline
Cool Cruiser
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 246
Default

They are setting this up for an additional destination tax. Once it is in place then they can come up with some fee that if you are larger then the requirements you can purchase a waiver for XXX amount per PAX.

why else would you put a rule in place that everyone already follows?
__________________

Caribbean Princess Oct 2012 Canada /New England
Carnival Destiny 07/23/2012 Eastern Caribbean
Coral Princess 6/15/2009 Alaska
Carnival Sensation 11/18/07 Bahamas
Crown Princess 10/06/07 Canada / New England
Blackbeard's Dive Cruise 06/92 Bahamas







Reply With Quote

Reply

Bookmarks


Ad Sponsored By
Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:39 PM.


© 1995 - 2014, The Independent Traveler, Inc. All rights reserved.
"A Community of People Who Love To Cruise"
All of the information contained within Cruise Critic is protected by copyright. You may, however, download a single copy only for your personal use.