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!

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.

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.

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

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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?