 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / August 2007Galapagos dive trip Q...
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. > 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (email appreciated). > p.s., cross-posted to rec.scuba. 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) - - Ahmar? Catamaran / Motor Sailor Archipel Motor Catamaran Cachalote Motor Sailor Deep Blue Motor Yacht Fragata (before San Jos?) 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. 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. >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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >(email appreciated). >p.s., cross-posted to rec.scuba. > Thanks again for everyone's replies. The girlfriend got on the > Mistral last Friday (I'm not licensed...yet...see next thread) after [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >(email appreciated). > >p.s., cross-posted to rec.scuba. Whew. glad I got my trip in when I did! > 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. >> Thanks again for everyone's replies. The girlfriend got on the >> Mistral last Friday (I'm not licensed...yet...see next thread) after [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > insurance to cancel the trip for a full refund. As far as I'm > concerned, Wolf & Darwin are the primary destination. 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  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > >> Thanks again for everyone's replies. The girlfriend got on the > >> Mistral last Friday (I'm not licensed...yet...see next thread) after [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 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. >>>> Thanks again for everyone's replies. The girlfriend got on the >>>> Mistral last Friday (I'm not licensed...yet...see next thread) after [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > The human impact there is much less than on the other islands. It will > be interesting to learn more. 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. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > >>>> Thanks again for everyone's replies. The girlfriend got on the > >>>> Mistral last Friday (I'm not licensed...yet...see next thread) after [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > your tour operator should know the most recent info for you to make your > go/no go decision. 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. George Cathcart <george.cathcart@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. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> pounded away at his > keyboard resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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 <george.cathc...@gmail.com> pounded away at his > > keyboard resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Darwin dives, so apparently my theory was right: the Mistral was > BSing their passengers. I agree with Greg again, and still. :) > > > George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> pounded away at his > > > keyboard resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I agree with Greg again, and still. :) 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 a.s 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. > > > > George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> pounded away at his > > > > keyboard resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > people, and grant myself executive whale shark visitation rights in > perpetuity. Hopefully it won't come to that. 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 ?????????????? > > > > > George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> pounded away at his > > > > > keyboard resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 157 lines] > the show ! It should be a good one. > Ken On Jul 12, 6:54 pm, brianwm...@gmail.com wrote: > 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? > On Jul 12, 6:54 pm, brianwm...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Can anyone anywhere substantiate these rumors with hard cites? 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Good luck. Thanks. I'll definitely be keeping everyone posted. > > 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. > > > Good luck. > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > underwater at Darwin watching whale sharks swim by. It looks like we > won't be complaining about too many dive boats on the site. 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 > > > Good luck. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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. > 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. http://www.galapagos.org/news/07_2007_Diving.html George Cathcart <george.cathcart@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. > George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> pounded away at his > keyboard resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups > ----= 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 > 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. On Jul 19, 10:24 am, George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. On Aug 1, 4:51 pm, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Jul 19, 10:24 am, George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > with such integrity would screw your friends. They might have to wait > a bit for refunds, but I think they will get them. 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 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 a.s: http://www.seashepherd.org/galapagos/galapagos_defending_sharks.html . > The Sea Shepherds are out there kicking a.s: > > 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 > . > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > gc 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-Expell ed.php gc > > . > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/04/america/LA-GEN-Ecuador-Amer... 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!) <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. On Aug 2, 1:27 am, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > pool, a good restaurant, a fun sports bar that showed American > football on TV. The hotel left nothing to be desired. 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 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. On Aug 2, 1:12 am, hierophantf...@hotmail.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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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. > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > little boat and take off for the islands, is it ?? The islands are > very far away from the mainland. 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 > 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. > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > checked in at LAX. Nothing like your own goat on those long lonely > sea crossings to Wolf and Darwin. And the ocean does all the work!!! > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And the ocean does all the work!!! 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." http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/07/16/Comment ary/Ecuadorian.Brothels.Illuminate.RedLight.Truths-2923988.shtml It sounds like the goat might be a safer idea. At least you know who's been there before you. > "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..." That's like a dollar a tooth. > Nothing like your own goat on those long lonely > sea crossings to Wolf and Darwin. Either a goat or a light jacket will keep you warm with the cold radiating up and off the ocean. It's up to you to decide where you'll put your hands when they chill in the breeze. >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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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 > >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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. >> >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 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >with them. When the Atlanta Aquarium starts allowing divers, I'll be >one of the first to sign up. 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 > 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. On Aug 1, 1:29 pm, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: > 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. On Aug 1, 4:29 pm, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: > > George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> pounded away at his > > keyboard resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > pangas went thru. I would still go to Galapagos if we didn't see > Darwin and Wolf though. 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.