Antarctica Trip Question

[joel_turner]

To other photo.net members: I apologize for this post but I attempted

to e-mail Shun with the e-mail address provided on Photo.net and

received a bounce back (user unknown). However if anyone else has

been on a general cruise to Antarctica and would like to share, I

would greatly appreciate it.

 

 

 

 

I read your article on Antarctica on Photo.net and I am seriously

considering going there on a cruise. I'm extremely curious about how

you perceived whether or not you had sufficient time to photograph the

areas that you landed on. You mentioned that it was part of a photo

trip but I suspect that landings were not designed with photographers

in mind. If it's not too much trouble can I ask you to break down a

"typical" day for me. I'm interested in what time the Zodiacs

launched, how long were you allowed to stay in one spot, etc.. My

greatest fear is that I'll spend $10,000 and get two hours in each

place.

 

 

 

 

Thanks in advance for your reply.

[mark_chappell]

I have some indirect (and a bit dated, and a bit biased) information on this. I spent 4

summers as a penguin researcher at a US base on the Antarctic Peninsula (Palmer

Station). This is the area of Antarctica most frequently visited by cruise ships, and we

had a number of such visits per year. From those visits, and from talking to both

passengers and guides, I have a few simple suggestions:

 

1. If you pick your cruise company carefully, you will do much better than if you pick

randomly. Antarctic cruses range from big 'Love Boat' clones with far too many

people, so they overwhelm the places they visit, don't have sufficient boats and

operators to get people ashore and back expediently, lack enough guides to ride herd

on the thundering hordes once they ARE ashore, etc. etc. to small ships that are

well-staffed, care about 'quality' issues (time ashore, small numbers of people, good

instruction about proper behavior around wildlife, etc.). The latter are in the 40-100

passenger range, maximum. They tend to be more expensive, but are worth it.

Research pays off here.

 

2. Take a close look at the proposed itinerary and make sure there is plenty of time

at each landing site. I agree with you: whirlwind visits to a big list of prime spots are

much less satisfying than spending more time in fewer spots. Along the Antarctic

Peninsula, the prime sites aren't very far apart so you don't spend a lot of time

traveling -- and even when moving from place to place you are usually close to land

and the scenery is stunning.

 

3. I don't know your tastes, but I recommend avoiding cruises that emphasize visits

to research stations or other human artifacts. When I was working down there it

always baffled me that people would spend huge amounts of money to visit such a

beautiful and isolated continent, but want to waste a lot of precious hours poking

around research stations (believe me, most science labs look pretty much the same

wherever you go).

 

4. The weather is always a factor in Antarctica, even along the frequently-visited

Peninsula (derisively referred to as the Banana Belt by those who spend time at the

South Pole). The best-planned itinerary can come apart at the seams if you get

caught in a storm. Any cruise company that isn't upfront about this is not being

honest.

 

5. On the assumption that you are most likely to go to the Antarctic Peninsula area,

and you leave from Punta Arenas (Chile) or Ushuaia (Argentina), count on a couple of

days of sailing just to cross the Strait of Magellan. I'd want AT LEAST a week

in Antarctica exclusive of the travel time too and from South America.

 

6. Worthwhile places in addition to Antarctica itself are Torres del Paine

National Park in south Chile (about 6 hours north of Punta Arenas -- absolutely

spectacular), the Falklands, and (out of the way for most cruises) South Georgia.

 

7. DO IT! The place is fantastic and you will likely have a fabulous visit. I spent

almost all my time at Palmer and didn't get to many of the more popular tourist sites,

and I'd love to go back. Some pictures are here: http://www.biology.ucr.edu/

people/faculty/MACphotos/MACphotosPolar.html

[ShunCheung]

Joel, I have changed internet service providers a couple of times since I wrote my Antarctica article back in 1999, and the e-mail address in the article is not updated. My current e-mail address should be available if you click on my name below and wait that 20 seconds.

<P>

Essentially the trip is a cruise. The ship takes you to some harbor, you get into those inflatable Zodiacs which take you to land. You wear long rubber boots so that you won't get wet.

<P>

The main problem with an Antarctic trip is that the weather is highly unpredictable. The chance is that you will lose a couple of days of landing to bad weather. Also, be flexable with your daily schedule. If the sea is clam, get ready to have a landing any time. And when the weather gets poor, be prepared to leave and get back onto the ship immediately. When it is windy and the sea is rough, it can be dangerous on a Zodiac. If one falls into the icy water, you could have a heart attack and be gone immediately. Even a strong and healthy person might not last more than 10, 15 minutes. The ship captain and tour leader are extremely conservative to make sure that the passengers are not in danger; translation: it might look safe outside but the leader might not want to take some minute chance to have a landing, and you'll be frustrated.

<P>

In other words, there is no fixed schedule. Weather permitting, you can have two landings per day; once we even had three. If the weather is good, you can stay longer, like 2, 3 hours. Again, you will lose days and have no landing at all.

<P>

If you can afford it both in terms of money and time, the <A HREF="http://www.cheesemans.com/">Cheesemans</A> here in Saratoga, California have a 4-week cruise to Antarctica. The time to sail from one island to anther is the same, so the extra week can potentially double the amount of landing you have. A friend of mine went on their trip and is very happy with it. In their trip back in early 1999, they once were stuck on an island for some 12 hours or so because the weather was so bad that they couldn't get back onto the ship. They also have a couple of professional nature photographers to lead their trip, so photography should be taken cared of. However, it is usually difficult to have all photographers on one ship, so be prepared to have passengers with mixed interests and nationalities.

[craig l]

I'll give a second-hand seconding of the recommendation for the Cheeseman's tour; I have a few friends who have gone, two of whom are professional nature photographers, and they heartily endorse the Cheeseman's. By the way, it's my understanding that the upcoming tour, whenever that is, check the website, will be their last.

Good luck,

Craig

[stevef]

Joel,

 

Joseph Van Os (http://www.photosafaris.com) runs tours to Antarctica dedicated to photography similar to the Cheeseman tours. I have gone on several of their other tours (but not the Antarctica tour) and have found there tours to be extremely enjoyable and very professionally run. I have also talked to people who have been on one of their Antarctica tours and enjoyed it very much. Hope you have a good time.

 

Steve

[ShunCheung]

Van Os has a trip in November this year (2003). However, unlike the Cheesemans, Van Os' is the typical 19-day Falkland-South Georgia-Antarctic Peninsula trip. Unfortunately, sailing from one island to another takes up a lot of time. You'll get about 8, 9 days of landing in a 19-day trip depending on how the weather cooperates. In a 4-week trip such as the Cheesemans', you can get almost twice the number of landings and therefore twice the amount of time for photography. Of course, a 4-week trip costs even more.

 

Van Os' advantage is that they use a smaller ship for Antarctica and have a much higher percentage of photographers, which means most people in the group would try to maximize their time for photography rather than having a drink. But the smaller ship also means a rougher ride on some of the roughest ocean in the world.

[joel_turner]

I really do appreciate all the responses so far and your recommendations. I'm prone to seasickness so the thought of a smaller ship gives me pause. I know it sounds strange but I am prepared to be seasick a portion of the trip. I suspect that as time goes on I'll get my "sea legs" and become acclimated. That and a lot of medication!

 

The Cheeseman sight had a lot of good information and as Shun indicated they potentially spend more time at each location which is very enticing. They are also the only sight that really mentioned spending time at the locations to study wildlife. Some of the other sights I looked at such as A&K, Society Expeditions offered the 19 day cruise with a cost that relatively speaking is not that much less and as Shun indicated your at sea for 8 of those. On reading the logs of those trips, on average, weather affected the landings at least twice.

I had thought that the Van OS trip geared to photographers sounded like a good idea but the small ship and the price (more than any other operator) are turn-offs. Each of the tours mentioned above has naturalists, etc. who guide you to the best locations for viewing and photographing which in essence is what you pay for on a "photo safari". Granted you get a photographic leader on Van Os but I suspect those skills can be learned in another workshop setting if needed and do not justify the large differential in price IMHO. Also, in order to meet the itinerary I suspect there will be hard and fast times that they will have to move on regardless of how good the photographic conditions are. Please don't construe that as a knock against Van Os whom I have no direct or indirect experience with and whom I'm sure runs excellent tours.

 

The other factor that comes into play for me is that I will be doing this potentially only once. It's not like going back to Yellowstone every year or two which is easy and in comparison very cheap.

 

I hope the Cheeseman company continues to run these tours as it will take me a little time to save the funds for it for both myself and my wife. She won't let me go without her. :-)

[ShunCheung]

A couple more comments on ship size and the season.

 

Van Os' trip is mainly in early December. That is quite early in the Antarctic tourist season, and some of the channels further south (closer to the Pole) will still be frozen, and the penguin chicks will be very young or perhaps not yet hatched. In December a smaller ship can perhaps sails through narrower channels.

 

Cheesemans' trip is mainly in January. That is later in the season and you'll see less ice and more channels will be open, and the larger ship will be less restrictive by then. Also by January, the penguin chicks should have grown a lot and perhaps close to adult size by late Janaury.

[Two23]

My wife and I are thinking of going to Antarctica in 5-10 years, when our kids are out of our hair. We aren't the "tour" type. We are the type that explore the Far North on our own. (Last summer we had a bush plane fly us & kids & canoe up on the east shore/Quebec side of Hudson Bay and drop us off, alone.) We have cold weather gear, experience, and in December/January will most likely be acclimated to temps far colder than those in Anarctica at the time. How difficult would it be for us to get to Antarctica by our selves, without some goofy tour? We've camped for days in temps down to -20 (F) with no problems.

 

 

Kent in SD

[mark_chappell]

For Kent: Who knows what it will be like in 5-10 years, but realistically a 'solo' trip to

Antarctica is out of the question unless you have A LOT of money to throw around.

The simple logistics are sobering: if you fly in, you need to do so from southern

South America (maybe 600-700 miles to the Antarctic Peninsula), or New Zealand

(several thousand miles). There's no regular air service, although you might be able

to get to one of the Chilean or Argentinian bases on King George Island. So you

would need to charter a substantial aircraft (a small single-engine Cessna-type is out

of the question). There aren't a lot of good places to land aircraft near areas that

have wildlife (if that's your interest) although there is plenty of room out on the

extensive and desolate polar icecap. Once on the continent, how would you get

around? Nearly all of Antarctica is permanently covered by ice sheets, with crevasses

and other hazards aplenty. People do cross these regions, but they need to be

superbly conditioned, well-trained, and well-equipped for ice travel -- are you willing

to haul a sledge with all your gear across such country, perhaps for hundreds of

miles?. It isn't at all like the Arctic, which has large snow- and ice-free areas in

summer that by comparison are absurdly easy to survive in. On the Antarctic

Peninsula (the most frequently visited area), travel is best by ship. Some folks do

take their own yachts and small boats down there, but it is definitely not a trivial

undertaking. Floating ice is present all the time. Even in summer, severe storms are

common and there aren't many places to land if you have to.

 

Another thing to consider: what are you going to do if you get into trouble? There is

no organzed search and rescue organization down there, and you are a long way

from any kind of help. Occasionally, adventurers do get into a jam, and unless they

have a well-organized (and well funded) backup plan, there aren't many options.

Sometimes the governmental research groups (National Science Foundation, British

Antarctic Survey, etc.) are compelled to drop their science and go off and save some

private expedition in dire straits -- all at taxpayer expense.

 

Finally, if you are a US citizen, you are bound by the provisions of the US Antarctic

Treaty, which sets the rules for interacting with wildlife, protecting historical sites,

etc.

http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rpts/ant/

[Two23]

I thinking more of using a sea kayak. I'm really not so big on wildlife--I like ice! I'm used to taking care of myself in wild areas. The expense part is probably the only thing that would stop me. I spent a fair amount of money to hire a plane to deposit & return my family, a canoe, and myself out on the absolutely desolate Quebec side of Hudson Bay, but I really can't justify spending something like $20,000 for a single trip, of course. That would buy me a lot of trips to the Siberian Arctic and Victoria Island! I'm just not a "tour" type of guy at all. I'm perfectly happy snowshoeing alone around South Dakota in the dead of winter with my camera in a waist pack and my rifle slung over my shoulder. I have no doubt that eventually they will build some sort of commercial hotel in the Anarctic with an airstrip. I should then be able to take off for a few days in a sea kayak, just my wife and I. These kinds of places are much better enjoyed alone, I think.

 

 

Kent in SD

[ShunCheung]

Kent, the ocean around Antarctica is amoung the roughest around the world. It is simply not practical to get there except by a passenger ship or in some rare cases, by chartered airchraft.

[bobatkins]

Doesn't Chile have some sort of town on the Antarctic? Town is a relative term of course, but I though they had families living there with schools etc. and even children born there. I just remember some sort of TV documentary on the subject many years ago. Against all the international treaties of course, but I though they were trying to establish some sort of settlement there.

 

Unless you have a VERY large amount of money, I don't think personal travel in Antarctia is even a remote possibility.

[mark_chappell]

Chile does have a 'settlement' on King George Island (they even flew a pregnant

woman in so she could give birth there, to establish some sort of priority for their

territorial claims). And (at least in the 1990's) there was a hotel of sorts. I think this

was at Marsh Base.

 

I have to second Shun and Bob here: I think going around with a sea kayak is a recipe

for disaster in the Antarctic. The seas are very rough and very cold (water

temperature is usually about 30 F) and in most places there is no easy place to get

ashore. That's one reason the penguin colonies are so concentrated: there are not

many places they can easily land and find some open ground to put up a nest. And if

a penguin has a hard time getting from sea to land, it's REALLY hard for any boat to

do so. It might be relatively safe to do some limited kayaking in the near vicinity of a

place such as Marsh Base, but it isn't wise getting more than a short distance from a

safe landing spot (I can remember a few times when winds around Palmer Station

went from nothing to 40 knots in 10 minutes, making for some really hairy moments

in a Zodiac boat before we made it to shore).

 

Finally, Kent's statement about snowshoeing around with a rifle requires a comment:

ALL wildlife in Antarctica is protected by the US Antarctic Treaty. As a US citizen, you

are prohibited from even bothering seals, birds, etc., let alone killing them. You need

a permit to harm wildlife and those are generally given only for scientific purposes

after careful consideration.

[bobatkins]

While I echo "there are some places better experienced alone", there are some places it's virtually suicidal to experience alone. Antarctica is probably one of them. The top of Everest is another (unless you're Reinhold Meisner).

[joel_turner]

As a quick follow up I contacted the Cheeseman's today and despite an earlier posting they are not stopping their Antarctica tours. They are already taking deposits for 2005-2006 in case anyone is interested.

 

If I am going it will be with them. The potential for 17-19 days of landing is too much to pass up and they are not much more expensive than the other tour operators.

[ShunCheung]

I just went on a trip to the Arctic last month (July 2003) in a similar setting as the Antarcitc cruises. Some of the participants of my trip have been on the Cheeseman's Antarctic trip; they are so happy with it that they are going with them again later on this year. They also mentioned that this year would be the Cheeseman's last trip, but apparently that is not the case. As far as I know Doug Cheeseman is now in his mid 60's and the financial risk for this kind of trip is pretty high (as you need to charter the entire ship with some major deposit; if you can't fill the ship, you could be in serious trouble). That was probably why Cheeseman was considering not to run the Antarctic trip any more.

<P>

I also had opportunities to talk to our tour leader and some of the Russian crew who have been to Antarctica many times. They seem to agree that January is the best time to vist; that is another plus for Cheeseman's trip.

<P>

You can see some of my Arctic images at <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=320709">this link</A>. The wildlife in the Arctic is quite different while the landscape is similar. IMO Antarctica is more interesting to visit because of the penguins and the landscape is more photogenic. However, the ocean in the Antarctic is a lot rougher. In the Arctic (at least in my trip to Svalbard, Norway), motion sickness is pretty much a non issue.