Galapagos dive trip Q...
Darryl
and she's been waitlisted on the Aggressor. In the meantime, I was
wondering if anyone could suggest another (available) dive trip around
June 11th (yes, 2007) for one week in the Galapagos? Price range
USD$3-4k.
TIA!
Darryl.
(email appreciated).
p.s., cross-posted to rec.scuba.
-hh
> A friend of mine is currently awaiting confirmation on the MY Mistral
> and she's been waitlisted on the Aggressor. In the meantime, I was
> wondering if anyone could suggest another (available) dive trip around
> June 11th (yes, 2007) for one week in the Galapagos? Price range
> USD$3-4k.
IIRC, the only other well-known/regarded scuba liveaboards for the
Galapagos are the Lammer Law and the Peter Hughes boat. Good luck.
-hh
hieroph...@hotmail.com
Try Deep Blue. It's the newest and fastest liveaboard in the
Galapagos. I was on it in 2004 and found it excellent.
http://www.deepbluegalapagos.com/index.html
Also, the Explorer Ventures Fleet has a liveaboard in Galapagos called
Galapagos Eco Explorer I. http://www.explorerventures.com/common/about.html
Also operating there are the following :
High range dive liveaboards (7 nights over $2000) - -
Aggressor I and II Motor Yacht
Beluga Motor Yacht
Lammer Law Trimaran
Mistral Motor Yacht
Sky Dancer
Mid range dive liveaboards (7 nights from $1000 to $2000) - -
Ahmará Catamaran / Motor Sailor
Archipel Motor Catamaran
Cachalote Motor Sailor
Deep Blue Motor Yacht
Fragata (before San José) Motor Yacht
Lobo de Mar
Mistral Low season (see above)
Nemo Catamaran
New Daphne
Sea Man Diving Motor Yacht
Economical dive liveaboards (7 nights under $1000) - -
Cormorant Motor Yacht
Floreana Motor Yacht
Golondrina I Motor Yacht
I don't know if you will find anything on such short notice. Good
luck.
Darryl
Mistral last Friday (I'm not licensed...yet...see next thread) after
being informed that the Goverment has suspended dives at Darwin and
Wolf for the time being. The operator offered a partial refund but it
sounds as though these two dives were THE dives to do.
George Cathcart
> Thanks again for everyone's replies. The girlfriend got on the
> Mistral last Friday (I'm not licensed...yet...see next thread) after
> being informed that the Goverment has suspended dives at Darwin and
> Wolf for the time being. The operator offered a partial refund but it
> sounds as though these two dives were THE dives to do.
>
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 23:46:41 -0400, Darryl
>
> >A friend of mine is currently awaiting confirmation on the MY Mistral
> >and she's been waitlisted on the Aggressor. In the meantime, I was
> >wondering if anyone could suggest another (available) dive trip around
> >June 11th (yes, 2007) for one week in the Galapagos? Price range
> >USD$3-4k.
>
> >TIA!
> >Darryl.
> >(email appreciated).
> >p.s., cross-posted to rec.scuba.
Whew. glad I got my trip in when I did!
Greg Mossman
> Thanks again for everyone's replies. The girlfriend got on the
> Mistral last Friday (I'm not licensed...yet...see next thread) after
> being informed that the Goverment has suspended dives at Darwin and
> Wolf for the time being. The operator offered a partial refund but it
> sounds as though these two dives were THE dives to do.
Interesting. Hopefully it's temporary. I haven't seen anything about
it on the internet. If it affects my August trip, I'm sure some info
will surface before then and I'll make an attempt to invoke my trip
insurance to cancel the trip for a full refund. As far as I'm
concerned, Wolf & Darwin are the primary destination.
Jer
Tourism, fishing, population threaten Galapagos environment
GALAPAGOS ISLANDS, Ecuador (11 Apr 2007) -- Ecuador declared the
world-famous Galapagos Islands at risk today and warned that visitor
permits and flights to the islands could be suspended.
more info...
http://www.cdnn.info/news/eco/e070411.html
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
George Cathcart
>
> --
> jer
> email reply - I am not a 'ten'
That story is more than two months old, and it has been circulated
widely already. The reported restrictions on travel to Wolf and Darwin
would be brand new. I agree with Greg. If they cancel visits to those
islands, the trip probably isn't worth it.
But I wonder why they would cancel those and not the land visits to
some of the central islands, like the Plazas and North Seymour. You
can't land at Wolf or Darwin. The only people who go there are divers.
The human impact there is much less than on the other islands. It will
be interesting to learn more.
Jer
Yes, the info isn't from this week, but I've understood the authorities
are attempting a layered approach to the restrictions, first this, then
that, and then there's this other stuff, etc etc. I'm unaware of any
requirements to make any of this info available to us through public
media channels (ie. internet) in a timely manner, but I would expect
your tour operator should know the most recent info for you to make your
go/no go decision.
Greg Mossman
Of course there's no "requirement" that Ecuador release any
information, but you'd think someone somewhere other than the one
poster who said his girlfriend said the islands were closed would have
reported this.
I did find the following on a random website specializing in Galapagos
liveaboard trips: "MISTRAL is being taken out of service soon so a
change of vessel is required." Perhaps the boat simply wasn't
running well, and like all honest operators, they lied and blamed
their inability to get to Wolf & Darwin on the government. Since I'm
scheduled on the Sky Dancer on a trip right in the middle of whale
shark season that's ending up costing over $13,000 for the two of us,
I obviously have a vested interest.
The most recent Aggressor trip report is from the trip that ended June
7, 2007. They made it to Wolf and Darwin just fine. I'll keep
checking for updates, but I think (and hope) that the OP's girlfriend
was mostly likely screwed over by a deceitful boat operator.
Dan Bracuk
keyboard resulting in:
:That story is more than two months old, and it has been circulated
:widely already. The reported restrictions on travel to Wolf and Darwin
:would be brand new. I agree with Greg. If they cancel visits to those
:islands, the trip probably isn't worth it.
I don't.
Dan Bracuk
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Greg Mossman
> George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> pounded away at his
> keyboard resulting in:
>
> :That story is more than two months old, and it has been circulated
> :widely already. The reported restrictions on travel to Wolf and Darwin
> :would be brand new. I agree with Greg. If they cancel visits to those
> :islands, the trip probably isn't worth it.
>
> I don't.
The Aggressor continues to publish reports of their recent Wolf and
Darwin dives, so apparently my theory was right: the Mistral was
BSing their passengers.
George Cathcart
I agree with Greg again, and still. :)
Greg Mossman
It gave me quite a scare, I'll say that. I wonder if I can sue
Mistral for inflicting emotional distress on me?
Sure, the central islands have lots to offer. But I wouldn't be
paying up the nose and freezing my butt off to travel there smack dab
in the middle of whale shark season if it weren't for the practical
certainty of seeing the big brutes en masse. If you don't care about
whale sharks, it's calmer diving the other half of the year and a
whole lot warmer, or I could have just gone to Cocos instead.
Also, I would have had much more flexibility with my trip dates. As
just about all the boats in this season are booked well in advance,
and the Peter Hughes spots on the last 10-day trips ever just about
impossible to come by, landing our cabin on the boat was a miracle,
and something for which I've had to bend over backwards far enough to
touch my toes to make the dates work.
It's a major inconvenience that's going to screw up my payroll, as
I'll have to pay 50 hourly employees early, their hours estimated for
the last couple days of the pay period, a real pain in the ass to fix
when I get home and adjust for the real hours worked. Worse, I'm
having to postpone the opening of a new store, since I don't dare turn
it over to my managers after only being open two weeks, and then run
off practically incommunicado on a liveaboard on the cusp of nowhere.
That's gonna cost me two more weeks of potential profits and a project
already well behind schedule and slowly making me broke.
Finally, I've been there before during whale shark season. I'm really
doing all of this for Janna, whose whale shark experience has so far
been limited to a baby off Roatan that we snorkeled with for all of
twenty seconds before some idjit yanked its tail and it disappeared
into the deep. I promised her whale sharks, sacrificed my soul to the
Devil to get us the whale sharks, there had damn well better be whale
sharks.
If the Ecuadorian government were to try to mess with my plans, look
out. They thought Che Guevara was something, but they don't know who
they're messing with now. I've had years of gun training on
rec.scuba, speak broken Spanish, and carry lots of pesos. Once I
adjust for the Quito altitude and meet Popeye's truck with my gun
shipment, I'd start an insurgency, take back the Galapagos for the
people, and grant myself executive whale shark visitation rights in
perpetuity. Hopefully it won't come to that.
brian...@gmail.com
I'm booked on Deep Blue for 2008 - but here's what they sent me just
yesterday:
To all divers who have dive trips booked with Galapagos Adventures on
the Deep Blue in 2008
As many of you have heard, on Tuesday, July 10, the director of the
Galapagos National Park cancelled the majority of the dive trips in
Galapagos. This decision took effect immediately and is going to
effect
countless divers worldwide who are booked on numerous yachts including
some people who are already in Ecuador. There are no less than 14
yachts which on a regular basis operate dive trips and all but 3 will
be
effected by this decision. The only yachts which apparently are not
effected by this decision - at least not immediately - are the Sky
Dancer and the 2 Aggressor yachts.
But before you go into a complete panic, let me fill you in on some
stuff.
First and foremost on your mind - the money you sent to me is safe.
Your trip is far enough out that none of your money was sent to
Ecuador
so your money is sitting safely in my business account here in the US.
Therefore you do not need to worry about losing your money.
Second your trip date is far in the future that these issues will be
resolved one way or the other months and months before your departure
date. Therefore unlike the people that are scheduled to go next
week,
you have nothing to worry about. In the very worst case scenario,
your
trip is simply cancelled and I will refund your money. Then you just
move on to a new destination.
However I sure that with all the rumors flying around on the internet
right now, you would still like to know what is going on down there.
Here is a brief summary. Keep in mind that all of this stuff has been
occuring in just the past 2 days.
As you can probably imagine, this whole thing is creating a very
explosive situation in Ecuador. The pressure is already beginning to
heat up on the Ecuadorian politicians as the people of Ecuador are
starting to realize the economic consequences of this decision.
It is my understanding that the Ecuadorian press has already jumped on
this story and the there is a growing discontent in Ecuador with the
director of the national park. I expect very soon the international
press will get word of this and then the pressure will really be
turned
up.
The yacht owners have banned together and have collectively hired an
attorney who is filing a lawsuit against the national park. The
local
Galapagos politicians are also involved with this issue and they have
requested a meeting with the President of Ecuador for the yacht
owners.
Unfortunately President Correa is currently in Europe but I was just
informed a few minutes ago that a meeting with the vice president of
Ecuador has been granted for next Tuesday.
Therefore it is my opinion that as long as the people involved with
this
issue do not take this situation lying down and stay united, this
decision will be overturned shortly. It is my personal belief that
the
director of the national park will probably lose her job over this
decision as rightly she should but only time will tell. The sooner
this
happens, the better.
Therefore do NOT panic. There is plenty of time for this decision to
be
reversed before your departure date. Instead you should simply take a
wait and see attitude. This situation is very new and the effects of
it have not been felt in Ecuador yet. We all need to give things a
little time to see where they go before making any decisions.
However,
you should NOT purchase any non-refundable airline tickets to Ecuador
until these issues are resolved. This should not be an issue because
you can not even get airline tickets until 10 months prior to
departure.
I have requested and received the email addresses of numerous
government
officials in Ecuador. If things do not improve, I distribute these
emails to all of you as well as to all of my individual clients and
request that you flood these people with complaints.
As you can only imagine, I am being swamped with calls and emails -
many
from people who are not even my clients. I understand that everyone
wants to know what is going on but these calls and emails are taking a
LOT of my time away from dealing with these issues. Therefore I
request that you give me at least a couple of week before calling me
or
sending me emails. I will keep everyone informed as things progress
via
mass emails like this one. Again - we will know the final results of
all this months and months before your travel date so sit back and
watch
the show ! It should be a good one.
Ken
Rick Simms
wrote:
>Finally, I've been there before during whale shark season. I'm really
>doing all of this for Janna, whose whale shark experience has so far
>been limited to a baby off Roatan that we snorkeled with for all of
>twenty seconds before some idjit yanked its tail and it disappeared
>into the deep. I promised her whale sharks, sacrificed my soul to the
>Devil to get us the whale sharks, there had damn well better be whale
>sharks.
>
Well, if all fails you can always book a "Behind the scenes tour" for
her at the Atlanta Aquarium. They have Whale Sharks.
Oh, you'll save money too
Rick
Scott
<brian...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184291680....@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Greg Mossman
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 07:38:15 -0700, Greg Mossman <moss...@qnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Finally, I've been there before during whale shark season. I'm really
> >doing all of this for Janna, whose whale shark experience has so far
> >been limited to a baby off Roatan that we snorkeled with for all of
> >twenty seconds before some idjit yanked its tail and it disappeared
> >into the deep. I promised her whale sharks, sacrificed my soul to the
> >Devil to get us the whale sharks, there had damn well better be whale
> >sharks.
>
> Well, if all fails you can always book a "Behind the scenes tour" for
> her at the Atlanta Aquarium. They have Whale Sharks.
Already been there, done that. We even got to watch them feed the
beasts from the top of the tank. But it's hardly the same as diving
with them. When the Atlanta Aquarium starts allowing divers, I'll be
one of the first to sign up.
Greg Mossman
> As many of you have heard, on Tuesday, July 10, the director of the
That's what I can't figure out. "As many of you have heard"?????
How?
I can't find a damn thing when specifically searching for it on the
internet. How do people "hear" about this sort of thing?
Can anyone anywhere substantiate these rumors with hard cites?
George Cathcart
Bad news, Greg,
A friend just sent me this e-mail from the owner of a dive shop in Va.
that has a charter to Galapagos next month. It was sent to the dive
shop's staff:
"We have just been notified the Galapagos National Parks suspended
Scuba diving activities in the Galapagos islands on Wed afternoon.
This
is a bizarre measure & one that is getting a huge uproar....we cannot
imagine This will stick & there are several entities working to
rectify the
situation. However, the reality will mean our Splash dive charter on
the
Deep Blue may be limited to a naturalist trip with no scuba diving and
only snorkeling if this government policy sticks.
"All customers should speak directly with Ron about this trip. Please
give
out my cell phone & e-mail. I will be in the store Sunday afternoon if
anyone would like to speak with me in person at <store name snipped>.
Sunday from 3:00 - 5:00 pm. I have tried reaching everyone by phone;
please feel free to call me.
"If anyone gets any news reports please let me know."
So, this is the first corroboration I've heard of this new policy, but
the ultimate source is still the dive operator Deep Blue, so until you
hear from your operator (Explorer, right?) I wouldn't panic.
Some of us were talking about this last night, wondering why the gov't
would cancel the relatively low impact activity of diving rather than
the much higher impact land tours, and someone pointed out the
obvious. An anti-diving policy will have the least economic impact. It
will also have the least environmental benefit, of course.
Good luck.
gc
Greg Mossman
> So, this is the first corroboration I've heard of this new policy, but
> the ultimate source is still the dive operator Deep Blue, so until you
> hear from your operator (Explorer, right?) I wouldn't panic.
The other post did say that the Aggressors and the Sky Dancer were
exempt from the new policy. I'm on the Sky Dancer. So hopefully it's
still a go for me, but I'm definitely going to stay nervous until we
actually get to Wolf and Darwin and get in the water.
> Some of us were talking about this last night, wondering why the gov't
> would cancel the relatively low impact activity of diving rather than
> the much higher impact land tours, and someone pointed out the
> obvious. An anti-diving policy will have the least economic impact. It
> will also have the least environmental benefit, of course.
>
> Good luck.
Thanks. I'll definitely be keeping everyone posted.
Greg Mossman
> > Good luck.
>
> Thanks. I'll definitely be keeping everyone posted.
Peter Hughes and the Aggressor have now confirmed on their websites
that they are still doing the trips.
http://www.peterhughes.com/Sky/Sky_pressrelease.shtml
http://www.aggressor.com/subpage9.php
So far it appears that everyone else is screwed, especially those who
have already paid for everything and are scheduled to travel in the
near future.
Of course things can apparently change pretty quickly in that part of
the world, so I'm not going to count my blessings until I'm actually
underwater at Darwin watching whale sharks swim by. It looks like we
won't be complaining about too many dive boats on the site.
-hh
Not sure where I read it recently, but there apparently was a recent
requirement to get a certain type of permit/licence to conduct scuba
diving.
The word was that the Aggressor & PH dutifully applied for said permits
and will be okay.
The boats that were trying to offer scuba diving with only a snorkel
permit are the ones having "problems" at present.
-hh
George Cathcart
> On Jul 14, 3:55 pm, Greg Mossman <moss...@qnet.com> wrote:
>
> > > Good luck.
>
> > Thanks. I'll definitely be keeping everyone posted.
>
> Peter Hughes and the Aggressor have now confirmed on their websites
> that they are still doing the trips.
>
>
> So far it appears that everyone else is screwed, especially those who
> have already paid for everything and are scheduled to travel in the
> near future.
>
> Of course things can apparently change pretty quickly in that part of
> the world, so I'm not going to count my blessings until I'm actually
> underwater at Darwin watching whale sharks swim by. It looks like we
> won't be complaining about too many dive boats on the site.
A couple of friends of mine are scheduled to go on Deep Blue a week
from today. Their LDS, through which they arranged the trip, has told
them what Deep Blue said to the Dive Shop, but they can't get any
other information at all. LDS won't even entertain questions about
cancellation or refunds, and there's no way to contact Deep Blue
except through the Dive Shop. Deep Blue has not a word about the
situation on their Web site.
It will probably be a lawyer's field day going through the various
contracts to see who's liable for what and what exclusions may apply.
Bottom line is my friends are probably screwed.
And I still say it was the wrong thing for Galapagos National Park to
do. They took an action that protects economic interests and does
nothing to address the issue of the UN designation of a World Heritage
Site at risk.
I'm glad I got my trip in when I did, and I was on Aggressor anyway so
wouldn't have been affected. I'm glad you're going to get yours in,
too, and I hope your wife gets lots of whale shark encounters.
But if I were you I'd pack a box lunch to eat for dinner rather than
spend another centavo in Puerto Ayora for dinner on your last night.
Rick Simms
wrote:
>On Jul 13, 8:00 am, Rick Simms <rick_si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
We missed the feeding from the gantry but the tour overall was worth
the money.
I'm glad you're getting to go. I've always wanted to get in the water
with them but haven't had the opportunity yet.
Rick Simms
Greg Mossman
> It will probably be a lawyer's field day going through the various
> contracts to see who's liable for what and what exclusions may apply.
> Bottom line is my friends are probably screwed.
Like you said, it really depends on the fine print. Bottom line is
that your friends paid a local dive shop for a trip they never
received. If the shop can't deliver, it's likely on the hook. If
your friends paid with a credit card, they're really lucky. Otherwise
it will probably take a small claims court judgment against the dive
shop to get them to pay up.
That's usually how the law is supposed to work. Then it's up to the
dive shop to sue the liveaboard owner, the liveaboard owner to sue the
government of Ecuador, etc. It wouldn't make sense for your friends
to have to sue Ecuador directly. The only time this doesn't operate
so smoothly is when one link in the chain disappears by filing
bankruptcy. Hopefully your friends' LDS is financially solvent.
> And I still say it was the wrong thing for Galapagos National Park to
> do. They took an action that protects economic interests and does
> nothing to address the issue of the UN designation of a World Heritage
> Site at risk.
Economic interests make the world go round. Without money, there's no
way to protect the finches and the fishies. There's little doubt that
the highly popular Galapagos liveaboards made good money in the past
years. The government wants its cut. Perhaps its methods were a bit
drastic, but it's a third-world country so what do you expect? They
could have sunk the boats.
> I'm glad I got my trip in when I did, and I was on Aggressor anyway so
> wouldn't have been affected. I'm glad you're going to get yours in,
> too, and I hope your wife gets lots of whale shark encounters.
One sort-of-bummer is that for whatever reason, recent regulation
changes affecting southern island itineraries, the San Cristobal
airport closure, I dunno, the 10-day itinerary now looks nothing like
the one I originally signed up for. Instead of adding extra central
island diving and land touring (the original itinerary included the
southern islands Enderby and Champion), they're simply adding more
days of Darwin. It's basically the same as the week-long itinerary,
the identical itinerary to the one I did on the Aggressor in 2004, but
we dive 4 entire days at Darwin.
Now Darwin is a world-class dive site, of that there's no doubt. But
16 dives in the same spot? That's gonna get a bit redundant no matter
how many schools of whale sharks we see.
Janna will still be thrilled about the central island dives and land
tours since it's her first trip, and it's hard to seriously complain
about having 16 potential whale shark dives, but I had been expecting
to see something new on this trip.
Of course it could have been far worse had I been booked on one of the
now-prohibited boats, so I guess I should be satisfied with whatever
we end up with as it's still far preferable to a land-based trip no
matter how good Doc Adelman says the land-based diving can be.
> But if I were you I'd pack a box lunch to eat for dinner rather than
> spend another centavo in Puerto Ayora for dinner on your last night.
I rarely let my morals come before a good meal. If I cared that much,
I'd be a vegetarian. They're just lucky I never developed a taste for
giant tortoise.
George Cathcart
Dan Bracuk
keyboard resulting in:
:http://www.galapagos.org/news/07_2007_Diving.html
So that's it? A simple matter of getting a permit? Or is the permit
hard to get?
Dan Bracuk
Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do.
George Cathcart
> George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> pounded away at his
> keyboard resulting in:
>
> :http://www.galapagos.org/news/07_2007_Diving.html
>
> So that's it? A simple matter of getting a permit? Or is the permit
> hard to get?
>
> Dan Bracuk
> Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do.
>
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
That's the official story. The back story is that the boats that had
the wrong permits had been operating that way for years. Surely the
Galapagos National Park folks knew about it, but they suddenly cracked
down, just days after UNESCO declared the Galapagos World Heritage
Site to be threatened. It's an action that does almost nothing to
protect the World Heritage Site, like restricting land tours or
limiting the number of passengers on cruise boats would. And hundreds
of divers who had already booked their vacations and paid their
deposits are screwed.
Apparently, the government has not made it easy to get the permits
since taking this action, either.
gc
Greg Mossman
> Apparently, the government has not made it easy to get the permits
> since taking this action, either.
Supposedly there were 17 boats making the trip, each of the boats
spending at least a full day at Darwin, usually more. The only dive
site at Darwin is The Arch, AFAIK. Even with the boats carefully
staggering their schedules, there's bound to be at least 3 or 4 boats
diving the Arch on any particular day. That's potentially 40-60
divers on the site at a time, day after day. Maybe there is an
ecological impact from such heavy use.
In any case, if I do make it up there and the rest of the boats stay
canceled, I can't say I'll miss the 40 or so divers that would
otherwise be chasing down my whale shark.
hieroph...@hotmail.com
> George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> pounded away at his
> keyboard resulting in:
> :That story is more than two months old, and it has been circulated
> :widely already. The reported restrictions on travel to Wolf and Darwin
> :would be brand new. I agree with Greg. If they cancel visits to those
> :islands, the trip probably isn't worth it.
> I don't.
I don't agree with Greg either on this. Our first dive was at Isla
Lobos. Saw a huge black ray, octopus, scorpionfish, to mention a
few. Next dives were at North Seymour where we saw alot of Hammers,
mobulas, seahorses and a Galapagos shark. Off of Santiago at Cousins
Rock we saw mobula, schools of barracuda, schools of anchovies, and 4
large turtles getting cleaned at a cleaning station. I didn't care so
much for Gordon's Rocks even though we saw schools of bonita and
turtles. Vis was poor.
Darwin was nice for the schools of hammerhead and jacks and the large
rays. Wolf was nice for the swim-thrus. We did a small cavern, a
little dead-end cave and a tunnel and then a huge cavern that the
pangas went thru. I would still go to Galapagos if we didn't see
Darwin and Wolf though.
Greg Mossman
> Darwin was nice for the schools of hammerhead and jacks and the large
> rays. Wolf was nice for the swim-thrus. We did a small cavern, a
> little dead-end cave and a tunnel and then a huge cavern that the
> pangas went thru. I would still go to Galapagos if we didn't see
> Darwin and Wolf though.
I'm not going to Darwin and Wolf for hammerheads and jacks and large
rays. I'm going for whale sharks. If I weren't going for whale
sharks, I could go in the warm season, dive comfortably, and save
money, or I could go to Cocos.
I'm going for whale sharks. If they take out the whale sharks, it's
still meaningful diving, but it's not meaningful enough to spend what
I'm spending and put up with water potentially as cold as 60 degrees.
hieroph...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Jul 18, 3:19 pm, Greg Mossman <moss...@qnet.com> wrote:
> A couple of friends of mine are scheduled to go on Deep Blue a week
> from today. Their LDS, through which they arranged the trip, has told
> them what Deep Blue said to the Dive Shop, but they can't get any
> other information at all. LDS won't even entertain questions about
> cancellation or refunds, and there's no way to contact Deep Blue
> except through the Dive Shop. Deep Blue has not a word about the
> situation on their Web site.
>
> It will probably be a lawyer's field day going through the various
> contracts to see who's liable for what and what exclusions may apply.
> Bottom line is my friends are probably screwed.
I don't know. I dove on Deep Blue and found them to be top notch. I
read your trip on Galapagos and I thought you mentioned that one of
the dive guides on Aggressors didn't speak English. On Deep Blue, the
guides are required to speak Spanish, English and at least one other
language such as German or French. We had two dive guides. One spoke
Spanish, English, German and French. The other spoke Spanish, English,
German, Italian and Japanese. The guides on Deep Blue are also
required to be native to Galapagos, born and raised there. And third,
they are required to have a college degree in the field, such as
biology, marine biology, environmental science. They were extremely
dedicated and proud of their country and I find it hard to believe
that the owners of that liveaboard broke any rules regarding diving in
the marine park or any rules for land trips. I doubt that a liveaboard
with such integrity would screw your friends. They might have to wait
a bit for refunds, but I think they will get them.
> And I still say it was the wrong thing for Galapagos National Park to
> do. They took an action that protects economic interests and does
> nothing to address the issue of the UN designation of a World Heritage
> Site at risk.
I think the bigger picture is money. The fact that Deep Blue can't
dive there is hurting ppl who are born to Galapagos who work hard on
that ship. It will also hurt those in the town where Darwin Station
is located because they won't have tourists buying their food and
gifts.
> I'm glad I got my trip in when I did, and I was on Aggressor anyway so
> wouldn't have been affected. I'm glad you're going to get yours in,
> too, and I hope your wife gets lots of whale shark encounters.
> But if I were you I'd pack a box lunch to eat for dinner rather than
> spend another centavo in Puerto Ayora for dinner on your last night.- Hide quoted text -
I loved Guayaquil. Deep Blue didn't take us to see Puerto Ayora. I
think Hughes and Aggressors have paid someone off for exclusive rights
which is unfortunate for the ppl of Ecuador and Galapagos since they
will see a decline in tourist income. I can understand if the
government stopped the land tours. Someone mentioned the wild goats
and such as being a threat. Deep Blue took us to a nature station
where they explained that the government holds a regulated hunt with
strict rules to keep these animals in check.
George Cathcart
I'm glad you posted this, hiero :). It's been a while since this
thread was updated, and a lot has happened in the meantime.
First, my friends' trip was canceled in time for them to cancel their
flight and get vouchers, and they will get their money back from the
dive shop when the dive shop gets its money back from Deep Blue, and
all that has been promised. They are disappointed, but not out a lot
of money. I think the dive shop did a poor job of communicating, and I
think Deep Blue probably could have done better in that regard, too,
but the government put them in a very bad position.
It appears now that what actually happened was that the director of
Galapagos National Park suddenly decided to enforce the conditions of
the permits the boats were operating under. Only Aggressor, Peter
Hughes and Explorer had scuba permits. The others, including Deep
Blue, only had snorkeling permits. It had been that way for years, but
all of a sudden, without warning, all but those three operators were
told no more scuba. They were not given a chance to upgrade their
permits, they had no chance to accommodate guests who had already paid
for their trips. In the end, unless some operator does pocket the
money and not refund to the guests, the boats take the biggest hit,
and the customers just have to try to re-book another time.
By the way, I didn't say that one of our dive guides didn't speak
English. The dive guides were the only ones who did speak English.
Since all the guests on our cruise were American, there was no need
for other languages, so I don't know what other languages they might
have had. One of them told us his least favorite nationality to deal
with was Russians, so he may well have spoken Russian. He also had a
PhD in biology. There was no need for anyone but the dive guides to
speak English either.
My question is why did GNP all of a sudden decide to start enforcing
the permit conditions? Well, a couple of weeks earlier, UNESCO
declared that the Galapagos National Park was in danger of losing its
World Heritage Site status because of deteriorating environmental
conditions. The government has previously acknowledged that the
islands under straining under the burden of too many tourists, as
visits have increased by orders of magnitude in the last 10 years. The
effects of the tourism are too many feet tramping on the islands; too
many Ecuadoran citizens taking up permanent residence on the islands
to support the tourist trade; too many additional non-native mammals,
including dogs, cats, pigs, more goats coming over with the new
residents; too much stress on the water supply and the water quality
of the shoreline; too much demand for fuel and resulting oil spills,
and so on.
I would assert that the tourists that have the least impact on the
environment of the Galapagos are the divers. They spend the least
amount of time on shore. They take nothing from the water, and they
put little except a bit of piss and some organic matter into the
water. So why pick on divers?
Probably for exactly those reasons. Because they don't spend much time
on shore, they don't create additional demand for restaurants, hotels,
bars, Internet cafes, etc. They're not spending much money ashore or
creating jobs, unlike the other tourists who are snorkeling a little,
hiking around the islands and boosting the economy of Puerto Ayora.
So Galapagos NP decided to take an action that might reduce the
number of tourists by a handful, making it look like they cared about
the environment, but all they really cared about was the economy, and
they are protecting the part of the economy that does the greatest
damage to the environment. It's a shell game, except that the shells
are transparent.
>
> > And I still say it was the wrong thing for Galapagos National Park to
> > do. They took an action that protects economic interests and does
> > nothing to address the issue of the UN designation of a World Heritage
> > Site at risk.
>
> I think the bigger picture is money. The fact that Deep Blue can't
> dive there is hurting ppl who are born to Galapagos who work hard on
> that ship. It will also hurt those in the town where Darwin Station
> is located because they won't have tourists buying their food and
> gifts.
No, as I said above, the reduction in the number of divers will have
minimal impact in Puerto Ayora (the town where Darwin Station is
located) because they don't spend that much time or money there, and
there aren't really that many of them. The boats will continue to
operate, but now instead of operating as scuba liveaboards, they'll
probably be doing snorkeling day trips, so their passengers will
probably spend more time ashore, in town, and tramping over the wild
islands. There has been no reduction that I'm aware of in the larger
cruise ships doing those kinds of trips.
>
> > I'm glad I got my trip in when I did, and I was on Aggressor anyway so
> > wouldn't have been affected. I'm glad you're going to get yours in,
> > too, and I hope your wife gets lots of whale shark encounters.
> > But if I were you I'd pack a box lunch to eat for dinner rather than
> > spend another centavo in Puerto Ayora for dinner on your last night.- Hide quoted text -
>
> I loved Guayaquil. Deep Blue didn't take us to see Puerto Ayora. I
> think Hughes and Aggressors have paid someone off for exclusive rights
> which is unfortunate for the ppl of Ecuador and Galapagos since they
> will see a decline in tourist income. I can understand if the
> government stopped the land tours. Someone mentioned the wild goats
> and such as being a threat. Deep Blue took us to a nature station
> where they explained that the government holds a regulated hunt with
> strict rules to keep these animals in check.
We liked Guayaquil, which is on the mainland, too. If I had it to do
over, I'd have gone back through Guayaquil instead of Quito. The
altitude really got me in Quito, and in our very brief time in
Guayaquil we could see that there was plenty to see there. But that's
irrelevant to the issues on the islands. Puerto Ayora is the main port
town on the island of Santa Cruz. If you fly into Baltra, that's where
you spend your last night on the boat, eating dinner in town and
anchored in the harbor. If you didn't go there, you must have flown in
and out of San Cristobal. I understand San Cristobal airport is
undergoing expansion (just what they need) and is closed, so all
traffic is now going through Baltra and Puerto Ayora. Nobody has
exclusive rights to it. It is where the Darwin Research Station is
located, and it's growing with hotels, condos, shops and Internet
cafes.
The feral goats are the single biggest threat on the wild islands and
the wild parts of the inhabited islands. They have been there for
centuries, breeding like rats and eating the vegetation on which the
tortoises and other reptiles depend. They were introduced by the
whalers and pirates and Navies that used the Galapagos as a way
station and provisioning station in the 18th and 19th centuries. In
recent years the government has been trying systematically to
eradicate them, as they should, to protect the native wildlife. Not
hold them in check. They need to be destroyed, and their efforts are
mostly commendable. I have only one criticism of the effort, and that
is that instead of using the meat to feed people, they let the
carcasses rot where they're shot. They hunt from helicopters, and they
do a pretty good job, but then all that meat is just wasted. In
addition, as more and more people come to the islands from the
mainland, they oppose the eradication hunts, because they want to hunt
goats for meat themselves. Some have even snuck their own goats in and
turned them loose to breed so there will be a hunting stock, which
totally undermines the eradication efforts.
Now, in what I do not think is an unrelated move, the president of
Ecuador less than two weeks ago effectively lifted the government's
ban on shark finning in Ecuadoran waters. The ban still applies to
deliberately fishing for sharks in order to take their fins, but any
sharks caught accidentally can be finned. I'm willing to bet the
mortgage that the number of accidental shark catches has skyrocketed
in the past two weeks. The ban also was not lifted for the Galapagos
Islands, where poaching is rampant anyway.
Here's the interesting thing, and just think about it: where are the
prime waters for catching sharks in the Galapagos? Wolf and Darwin, of
course. Why? Because the sharks are particularly abundant there. In
addition, the islands are remote and hard to patrol. The eyes and ears
of the enforcement effort has long been the liveaboard dive boats,
where at least one park ranger is always on board who can report
illegal activities in the area. So what did the reduction in dive
boats do? It cut the number of boats patrolling Wolf and Darwin and
assured that there will be many nights with nobody around to watch.
So please don't be fooled into thinking that Ecuador and GNP are doing
anything heroic, or anything much at all, to protect those islands. It
is, as you say, all about the money. There are alternative ways to
deal with this, but the government is taking the easiest way out, and
a way that is paved with gold for corrupt officials on the take from
the big Asian fishing factories.
What a shame.
gc
George Cathcart
Actually, I did agree with Greg, in part for the reason he states in a
few messages -- whale sharks. That was our primary purpose, too, and
we were rewarded with whale sharks. I'm not critical of any of the
other diving, with the possible exception, like you, of Gordon Rocks,
where we didn't see much except huge numbers of king angels and a big
friendly turtle. Every dive was special, but if we'd gone and not
been able to get to Darwin and Wolf, I would have felt cheated out of
the primary reason for going, especially if I thought when I signed
up that I would go.
gc
Greg Mossman
> Probably for exactly those reasons. Because they don't spend much time
> on shore, they don't create additional demand for restaurants, hotels,
> bars, Internet cafes, etc. They're not spending much money ashore or
> creating jobs, unlike the other tourists who are snorkeling a little,
> hiking around the islands and boosting the economy of Puerto Ayora.
You'd think the government would want to control the influx of people,
not create more jobs to attract more people. Liveaboards take the
strain off land accomodations, yet still create jobs for people and
are a lucrative source of government taxation.
Besides, I'll blow as much in our one night at La Garrapata as some
European backpacker tourists will spend in a week of dining.
> > I loved Guayaquil. Deep Blue didn't take us to see Puerto Ayora. I
> > think Hughes and Aggressors have paid someone off for exclusive rights
> > which is unfortunate for the ppl of Ecuador and Galapagos since they
> > will see a decline in tourist income. I can understand if the
> > government stopped the land tours. Someone mentioned the wild goats
> > and such as being a threat. Deep Blue took us to a nature station
> > where they explained that the government holds a regulated hunt with
> > strict rules to keep these animals in check.
>
> We liked Guayaquil, which is on the mainland, too. If I had it to do
> over, I'd have gone back through Guayaquil instead of Quito. The
> altitude really got me in Quito, and in our very brief time in
> Guayaquil we could see that there was plenty to see there. But that's
> irrelevant to the issues on the islands. Puerto Ayora is the main port
> town on the island of Santa Cruz. If you fly into Baltra, that's where
> you spend your last night on the boat, eating dinner in town and
> anchored in the harbor. If you didn't go there, you must have flown in
> and out of San Cristobal. I understand San Cristobal airport is
> undergoing expansion (just what they need) and is closed, so all
> traffic is now going through Baltra and Puerto Ayora. Nobody has
> exclusive rights to it. It is where the Darwin Research Station is
> located, and it's growing with hotels, condos, shops and Internet
> cafes.
I didn't spend much time in Guayaquil since our flight was delayed
coming in, our luggage was missing so we had to spend an inordinate
amount of time at the airport dealing with Latin American-style red
tape (tapa roja?), and I think we finally got to the hotel around 1
a.m. We got up at 5 a.m. to breakfast at 6 and leave the hotel at
6:15 for the airport. On the way back, we did Quito, and except for
an initial bout of altitude sickness after over-exerting myself trying
to be helpful with the group's luggage, I enjoyed the city. Great
dining options, casinos, amazing Andean setting, and lovely cold
weather.
This time, we're flying in and out of Quito and we're spending an
extra day on the way in to check out the city (and allow for any
delayed luggage to catch up). There's an Old City chock full with
cathedrals and other antiquities (the city was founded in the 1500s)
and we're planning to try a Greek-Ecuadorian restaurant in the hills
that has a spectacular view of the city: Cafe Mosaico (http://
www.cafemosaico.com.ec). My only worry is getting mugged for my
camera as it's not the safest town in the world.
Guayaquil, on the other hand, doesn't seem to offer much other than
the potential of contracting yellow fever. And the Hotel Oro Verde
that the liveaboards use wasn't near as nice as the Mercure Alameda.
12 more days! I'll definitely report back on both Quito and the
Galapagos.
> Now, in what I do not think is an unrelated move, the president of
> Ecuador less than two weeks ago effectively lifted the government's
> ban on shark finning in Ecuadoran waters. The ban still applies to
> deliberately fishing for sharks in order to take ...
The Sea Shepherds are out there kicking ass:
http://www.seashepherd.org/galapagos/galapagos_defending_sharks.html
George Cathcart
.
>
> The Sea Shepherds are out there kicking ass:
>
> http://www.seashepherd.org/galapagos/galapagos_defending_sharks.html
Well, they were. That was a good bust. Unfortunately, it was after
that went down that President Correa instituted the "exception" for
"accidental" catches. Those guys would just walk now because the
government wouldn't be able to prove the sharks were caught
deliberately.
gc
hieroph...@hotmail.com
> On Aug 1, 4:29 pm, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> Actually, I did agree with Greg, in part for the reason he states in a
> few messages -- whale sharks. That was our primary purpose, too, and
> we were rewarded with whale sharks. I'm not critical of any of the
> other diving, with the possible exception, like you, of Gordon Rocks,
> where we didn't see much except huge numbers of king angels and a big
> friendly turtle. Every dive was special, but if we'd gone and not
> been able to get to Darwin and Wolf, I would have felt cheated out of
> the primary reason for going, especially if I thought when I signed
> up that I would go.
I understand what you guys mean. I was hoping to see whale sharks too
but we did not on our trip. However, I still enjoyed the experience
very much.
hieroph...@hotmail.com
> On Aug 1, 4:51 pm, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I'm glad you posted this, hiero :). It's been a while since this
> thread was updated, and a lot has happened in the meantime.
Thanks George. :-)
> First, my friends' trip was canceled in time for them to cancel their
> flight and get vouchers, and they will get their money back from the
> dive shop when the dive shop gets its money back from Deep Blue, and
> all that has been promised. They are disappointed, but not out a lot
> of money. I think the dive shop did a poor job of communicating, and I
> think Deep Blue probably could have done better in that regard, too,
> but the government put them in a very bad position.
I'm in agreement with you that Deep Blue could have better
communication with their pax. All of our questions went thru a booking
agency since we did not book with a dive shop. That was kind of a
hassle. However that liveaboard without question was the second nicest
ship I've ever been on. It's a shame to take it out of commission for
divers.
<snip>
> By the way, I didn't say that one of our dive guides didn't speak
> English. The dive guides were the only ones who did speak English.
> Since all the guests on our cruise were American, there was no need
> for other languages, so I don't know what other languages they might
> have had. One of them told us his least favorite nationality to deal
> with was Russians, so he may well have spoken Russian. He also had a
> PhD in biology. There was no need for anyone but the dive guides to
> speak English either.
My mistake and my apologies.
> My question is why did GNP all of a sudden decide to start enforcing
> the permit conditions? Well, a couple of weeks earlier, UNESCO
> declared that the Galapagos National Park was in danger of losing its
> World Heritage Site status because of deteriorating environmental
> conditions. The government has previously acknowledged that the
> islands under straining under the burden of too many tourists, as
> visits have increased by orders of magnitude in the last 10 years. The
> effects of the tourism are too many feet tramping on the islands; too
> many Ecuadoran citizens taking up permanent residence on the islands
> to support the tourist trade; too many additional non-native mammals,
> including dogs, cats, pigs, more goats coming over with the new
> residents; too much stress on the water supply and the water quality
> of the shoreline; too much demand for fuel and resulting oil spills,
> and so on.
If the problem is that bad and suddenly that noticeable, then they
should stop the tourism altogether.
> I would assert that the tourists that have the least impact on the
> environment of the Galapagos are the divers. They spend the least
> amount of time on shore. They take nothing from the water, and they
> put little except a bit of piss and some organic matter into the
> water. So why pick on divers?
They aren't. They are *selectively* picking on boats other than
Hughes and Aggressors.
> Probably for exactly those reasons. Because they don't spend much time
> on shore, they don't create additional demand for restaurants, hotels,
> bars, Internet cafes, etc. They're not spending much money ashore or
> creating jobs, unlike the other tourists who are snorkeling a little,
> hiking around the islands and boosting the economy of Puerto Ayora.
On our trip all of us stayed overnight at a hotel and we ate dinner in
Guayaquil the night we arrived and the night we left. We stayed in the
Grand Hotel and it was beautiful. Some of the ppl on our boat had
arrived there several days ahead and some stayed several days
afterward. So that is fueling the restaurant/hotel trade as well as
taxi service, etc.
> So Galapagos NP decided to take an action that might reduce the
> number of tourists by a handful, making it look like they cared about
> the environment, but all they really cared about was the economy, and
> they are protecting the part of the economy that does the greatest
> damage to the environment. It's a shell game, except that the shells
> are transparent.
Like I said, I believe Hughes and Aggressors paid someone off and
unfortunately that person agreed to the bribe. Hughes and Aggressors
want to dominate their market and are no different from the big
corporations that we all bitch about but since they provide
entertainment, we (or some of us) accept their tactics.
> No, as I said above, the reduction in the number of divers will have
> minimal impact in Puerto Ayora (the town where Darwin Station is
> located) because they don't spend that much time or money there, and
> there aren't really that many of them. The boats will continue to
> operate, but now instead of operating as scuba liveaboards, they'll
> probably be doing snorkeling day trips, so their passengers will
> probably spend more time ashore, in town, and tramping over the wild
> islands. There has been no reduction that I'm aware of in the larger
> cruise ships doing those kinds of trips.
Ok, I was ignorant to the fact that Puerto Ayora in where Darwin
Station is located. Deep Blue took us there and left us for half a day
to travel around. I bought things there, as did most in our group. Do
you have any opinions as to why cruise lines are not affected ??
> We liked Guayaquil, which is on the mainland, too. If I had it to do
> over, I'd have gone back through Guayaquil instead of Quito. The
> altitude really got me in Quito, and in our very brief time in
> Guayaquil we could see that there was plenty to see there. But that's
> irrelevant to the issues on the islands. Puerto Ayora is the main port
> town on the island of Santa Cruz. If you fly into Baltra, that's where
> you spend your last night on the boat, eating dinner in town and
> anchored in the harbor. If you didn't go there, you must have flown in
> and out of San Cristobal. I understand San Cristobal airport is
> undergoing expansion (just what they need) and is closed, so all
> traffic is now going through Baltra and Puerto Ayora. Nobody has
> exclusive rights to it. It is where the Darwin Research Station is
> located, and it's growing with hotels, condos, shops and Internet
> cafes.
We flew in and out of Guayquil. I wonder if things will change once
the airport is re-opened.
> The feral goats are the single biggest threat on the wild islands and
> the wild parts of the inhabited islands. They have been there for
> centuries, breeding like rats and eating the vegetation on which the
> tortoises and other reptiles depend. They were introduced by the
> whalers and pirates and Navies that used the Galapagos as a way
> station and provisioning station in the 18th and 19th centuries. In
> recent years the government has been trying systematically to
> eradicate them, as they should, to protect the native wildlife. Not
> hold them in check. They need to be destroyed, and their efforts are
> mostly commendable. I have only one criticism of the effort, and that
> is that instead of using the meat to feed people, they let the
> carcasses rot where they're shot. They hunt from helicopters, and they
> do a pretty good job, but then all that meat is just wasted. In
> addition, as more and more people come to the islands from the
> mainland, they oppose the eradication hunts, because they want to hunt
> goats for meat themselves. Some have even snuck their own goats in and
> turned them loose to breed so there will be a hunting stock, which
> totally undermines the eradication efforts.
The goat hunts are not all from helicopter. We were told by our guides
that one must apply for a permit to do a walking hunt and one must
live in the area for one week before going into the brush to hunt.
They don't want someone pooping in the woods so to speak and leaving a
seed that might grow into a tree that doesn't belong there. I know it
sounds weird but I suppose it could happen. As far as ppl sneaking in
goats, I find that hard to believe. The security in Guayaquil was all
over the place. It's not like someone could just put a goat into a
little boat and take off for the islands, is it ?? The islands are
very far away from the mainland.
hieroph...@hotmail.com
> On Aug 1, 3:06 pm, George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Guayaquil, on the other hand, doesn't seem to offer much other than
> the potential of contracting yellow fever. And the Hotel Oro Verde
> that the liveaboards use wasn't near as nice as the Mercure Alameda.
Guayquil is really a nice city. There's a beautiful waterfront
district with shops, restaurants, an IMAX theater and a botanical
garden featuring flowers, trees, iguanas, water fountains. Just
walking along the waterfront was enough to make me smile. The
buildings give those into photograghy a wonderful chance to capture
some outstanding architecture, both old and new. Our hotel had an old
cathedral right next door that we took several shots of. I was more
than happy with The Grand Hotel there : a bellhop jumping to open
doors for you and grab your luggage, a room that had classic marble
floors, was tastefully decorated and kept spotlessly clean, a lovely
pool, a good restaurant, a fun sports bar that showed American
football on TV. The hotel left nothing to be desired.
George Cathcart
> On Aug 1, 6:06 pm, George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > My question is why did GNP all of a sudden decide to start enforcing
> > the permit conditions? Well, a couple of weeks earlier, UNESCO
> > declared that the Galapagos National Park was in danger of losing its
> > World Heritage Site status because of deteriorating environmental
> > conditions. The government has previously acknowledged that the
> > islands under straining under the burden of too many tourists, as
> > visits have increased by orders of magnitude in the last 10 years. The
> > effects of the tourism are too many feet tramping on the islands; too
> > many Ecuadoran citizens taking up permanent residence on the islands
> > to support the tourist trade; too many additional non-native mammals,
> > including dogs, cats, pigs, more goats coming over with the new
> > residents; too much stress on the water supply and the water quality
> > of the shoreline; too much demand for fuel and resulting oil spills,
> > and so on.
>
> If the problem is that bad and suddenly that noticeable, then they
> should stop the tourism altogether.
I don't know that they have to halt it altogether, but the measure of
restricting diving does not address the problem at all. They need
comprehensive management of the tourism industry, and it should
address the portions of the industry that cause the greatest harm to
the environment.
>
> > I would assert that the tourists that have the least impact on the
> > environment of the Galapagos are the divers. They spend the least
> > amount of time on shore. They take nothing from the water, and they
> > put little except a bit of piss and some organic matter into the
> > water. So why pick on divers?
>
> They aren't. They are *selectively* picking on boats other than
> Hughes and Aggressors.
The selectivity is based on the permits the boats currently hold,
which do not allow them to conduct scuba operations. Hughes,
Aggressors and Explorer all have the proper permits, the others do
not. But they haven't had the proper permits for years, and it was
never enforced before. Two weeks after the UNESCO report threatening
to remove World Heritage Site status if something isn't done, the
government responded by enforcing those permits. But they took no
other actions to protect the environment.
>
> > Probably for exactly those reasons. Because they don't spend much time
> > on shore, they don't create additional demand for restaurants, hotels,
> > bars, Internet cafes, etc. They're not spending much money ashore or
> > creating jobs, unlike the other tourists who are snorkeling a little,
> > hiking around the islands and boosting the economy of Puerto Ayora.
>
> On our trip all of us stayed overnight at a hotel and we ate dinner in
> Guayaquil the night we arrived and the night we left. We stayed in the
> Grand Hotel and it was beautiful. Some of the ppl on our boat had
> arrived there several days ahead and some stayed several days
> afterward. So that is fueling the restaurant/hotel trade as well as
> taxi service, etc.
Why are we talking about Guayaquil? Guayaquil is on the mainland, 600
miles from the Galapagos. It is the largest city in Ecuador and a
major port. Everyone going to the Galapagos must spend a night in
either Guayaquil or Quito on the way to and from the Galapagos.
Puerto Ayora is the town on Santa Cruz Island that exists because of
the tourism. It is the one that affects the water and air quality of
Santa Cruz and intrudes on native habitats.
>
> > So Galapagos NP decided to take an action that might reduce the
> > number of tourists by a handful, making it look like they cared about
> > the environment, but all they really cared about was the economy, and
> > they are protecting the part of the economy that does the greatest
> > damage to the environment. It's a shell game, except that the shells
> > are transparent.
>
> Like I said, I believe Hughes and Aggressors paid someone off and
> unfortunately that person agreed to the bribe. Hughes and Aggressors
> want to dominate their market and are no different from the big
> corporations that we all bitch about but since they provide
> entertainment, we (or some of us) accept their tactics.
I think someone was paid off, but I don't have any reason to suspect
the liveaboards. They are already full year round, booked years in
advance during the whale shark season. There's no reason for them to
invest in cutting off the competition. Who really benefits from the
diving restrictions? The shark poachers who will have fewer people
watching them at Wolf and Darwin.
>
> > No, as I said above, the reduction in the number of divers will have
> > minimal impact in Puerto Ayora (the town where Darwin Station is
> > located) because they don't spend that much time or money there, and
> > there aren't really that many of them. The boats will continue to
> > operate, but now instead of operating as scuba liveaboards, they'll
> > probably be doing snorkeling day trips, so their passengers will
> > probably spend more time ashore, in town, and tramping over the wild
> > islands. There has been no reduction that I'm aware of in the larger
> > cruise ships doing those kinds of trips.
>
> Ok, I was ignorant to the fact that Puerto Ayora in where Darwin
> Station is located. Deep Blue took us there and left us for half a day
> to travel around. I bought things there, as did most in our group. Do
> you have any opinions as to why cruise lines are not affected ??
Yes, as I stated, the cruise lines create more jobs than the dive
boats. Their passengers spend more time ashore and spend more money.
The government wanted to do something that appeared to benefit the
environment, but they didn't want to harm the economy, so they
targeted dive operators. Remember, the boats can still operate, just
not as scuba operations. So nobody has lost any jobs. But the
restrictions do virtually nothing to protect the environment.
>
> > We liked Guayaquil, which is on the mainland, too. If I had it to do
> > over, I'd have gone back through Guayaquil instead of Quito. The
> > altitude really got me in Quito, and in our very brief time in
> > Guayaquil we could see that there was plenty to see there. But that's
> > irrelevant to the issues on the islands. Puerto Ayora is the main port
> > town on the island of Santa Cruz. If you fly into Baltra, that's where
> > you spend your last night on the boat, eating dinner in town and
> > anchored in the harbor. If you didn't go there, you must have flown in
> > and out of San Cristobal. I understand San Cristobal airport is
> > undergoing expansion (just what they need) and is closed, so all
> > traffic is now going through Baltra and Puerto Ayora. Nobody has
> > exclusive rights to it. It is where the Darwin Research Station is
> > located, and it's growing with hotels, condos, shops and Internet
> > cafes.
>
> We flew in and out of Guayquil. I wonder if things will change once
> the airport is re-opened.
Re-opening the airport on San Cristobal will relieve some of the
pressure on Puerto Ayora, perhaps, but I'm not sure there's a lot of
infrastructure on San Cristobal to support the travelers coming in and
out. The boats will still go to Puerto Ayora because it's centrally
located.
I may have misspoken about importing goats from the mainland, but I
don't know that the security in Guayaquil, which is on the mainland
and not the only point of departure for boats going to the Galapagos,
could prevent it. But see this: http://www.galapagos.org/news/05_2007_goats.html.
Read down to the reactions of some of the locals to the goat hunts,
and at the end, some have been going into the wilds to capture goats
and keep them for meat. Of course, they will breed them,and some will
go free and could repopulate the islands. That could have been
prevented by harvesting and butchering the goats, making the meat
available, rather than leaving them to rot on the ground.
As for the concern about people pooping invasive seeds in the woods,
that is one of the most common mechanisms by which invasive species
spread.
gc
George Cathcart
We stayed at the Unipark in downtown Guayaquil, which was very nice.
We got in pretty late, so we didn't see much at night, but next
morning I was up early and went across the street to the central plaza
-- traditional Latin American plaza with the cathedral at one end and
the government building at the other. The trees in the plaza were
swarming with iguanas. In the middle was a statue of Simon Bolivar on
horseback. I went in the cathedral, too, which was quite beautiful. As
I came out a procession came down the street from one of the side
chapels following a priest with a cross and chanting as they made
their way to the main cathedral.
There is also a very nice park and botanical garden that several of
our group who had come down a day early had enjoyed before we arrived.
We passed it on the way to the airport but didn't have time to
explore, of course.
gc
Greg Mossman
> I may have misspoken about importing goats from the mainland, but I
> don't know that the security in Guayaquil, which is on the mainland
> and not the only point of departure for boats going to the Galapagos,
> could prevent it.
Great! I was planning on bringing a goat in my checked bags, but I
wasn't sure how easy it would be to get it through security. If
Guayaquil isn't an issue, then I'll just worry about getting it
checked in at LAX. Nothing like your own goat on those long lonely
sea crossings to Wolf and Darwin.
George Cathcart
And the ocean does all the work!!!
Greg Mossman
On that subject, apparently Puerto Ayora isn't just filled with
goatherders. While searching aimlessly for any news about the
government's dive ban, I came across the following article detailing
the Galapagos prostitution trade:
"For this group of men there are four to nine girls all depending on
how many have been taken into the back rooms; $14 is the going rate
for full-service sex. These chongos are pervasive in mainland
Ecuador, and have made their way out to the Galapagos Islands as well.
The most populated island, Santa Cruz, has three of them. The names
are not so important as you only tell the taxi driver how far out of
town you want to go and he knows what you mean. For example I asked
the taxi driver to take me to "quatro y media," four and a half
kilometers, and I arrived at "Platanal."
It sounds like the goat might be a safer idea. At least you know
who's been there before you.
George Cathcart
And now the government of Ecuador is cracking down on the people who
try to enforce the ban on shark finning...
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/04/america/LA-GEN-Ecuador-American-Expelled.php
gc
Greg Mossman
Maybe I can visit him in jail when I'm in Quito next week. I dare not
say anything more on the subject until after I get back, lest I get
noticed by the government and put on a list of undesirables forbidden
entrance to the country. That would suck for sure.
(BTW, in case any government officials are reading this, I plan to
spend a lot of money in your bars and restaurants while I'm on the
mainland and even buy lots of cheesy wood-carved boobies (no Grumman,
not those kind) and tortoises and the like at the market in Puerto
Ayora, so please let my dollars speak louder than my words and let me
in!)
hieroph...@hotmail.com
> We stayed at the Unipark in downtown Guayaquil, which was very nice.
> We got in pretty late, so we didn't see much at night, but next
> morning I was up early and went across the street to the central plaza
> -- traditional Latin American plaza with the cathedral at one end and
> the government building at the other. The trees in the plaza were
> swarming with iguanas. In the middle was a statue of Simon Bolivar on
> horseback. I went in the cathedral, too, which was quite beautiful. As
> I came out a procession came down the street from one of the side
> chapels following a priest with a cross and chanting as they made
> their way to the main cathedral.
I think you are talking about the one plaza that we visited. Very
nice.
> There is also a very nice park and botanical garden that several of
> our group who had come down a day early had enjoyed before we arrived.
> We passed it on the way to the airport but didn't have time to
> explore, of course.
There's always next time. Or maybe not.