British Tierra del Fuego

[Nugax]

...The caliche beds of Chile were the main source of sodium nitrate required to produce gunpowder and to manufacture nitric acid for manufacturing cordite and other smokeless propellants. The strategic importance was so great that the Imperial German Navy lost an entire fleet trying to break British control of access to the nitrates. Only the ingenuity of Fritz Haber's synthetic nitric acid plant stopped Germany from running out of cordite in 1916.

A coaling station in Fuego would have been a major asset. Curiously enough, brown coal (lignite) is/was mined at Isla Picton/Picton Island.

And I'm sure that other commercial interests would have found the harbours of Fuego useful - the whaling industry for one. The clippers were an off-the-cuff offer. I did mention whaling, which Port Stanley and South Georgia both provided support to.

Falklands and Alaska, with a pinch of Newfoundland, may give you the flavour of the Crown Colony of Tierra Del Fuego...

And where's Petete123123 when we need him?

You mean the deposits in the North of Chile, that Britain was effortlessly able to influence without any such position in del Feugo? Influence that them taking Chilean claimed land would probably damage? Control of the straits is not relevent for ensuring a supply, not to mention Britain is one of the few states with alternative nitrate supplies (India).

Brown coal is pretty much only useful for electicity generation, its pretty much worthless for steamships in the eras we're talking about. Plus Britain isn't really lacking for coal you know.

Whalers don't need to stop at Terra del Fuego, they don't exactly have limited range, there are better ports in the region, and the seas are pretty dangerous.

 

[Admiral Brown]

There is a bit more population. I live in Ushuaia, and here there are about 70.000 inhabitants..

I didn't know you were Argentinian (or at least an inhabitant of Argentina)! We already had a member from Misiones, and now one from the other side of the country! Interesting...

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

But remember that not all the island is a windy wasteland only good for raising sheep. The other half is pretty much like Alaska, but its not that cold. And there is oil near the coast, as well as beautiful landscapes, which aren't a major touristic attraction but in OTL, it's the major economic activity of a city of about 70.000 inhabitants.

No oil was known in the timeframe we're discussing, and I'd be dubious that it could be economically extracted in the 19th c, nor would the demand exist yet.

Also, "not that cold" is a relative term. "Not that cold" compared to Siberia, maybe, but not exactly a favorable climate, either.

The lack of a port to match Stanley is more or less fatal to the prospects of it being used as a base.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

If people move there it'll be for jobs, and in that neck of the world it'd generally be either military or corporate sheep farms. It'd effectively be much like the Southland Region of New Zealand rather than the Falklands due to more room and having some forests at least - but thats still only 50,000 people at most that were convinced to move down to Southland.

I'd say its possible with an earlier POD that changes Britains economic situation/settling prospects, that makes them more desirous of primary production sites rather than imformal empire - if there are still competitive merchentile powers opposing them in Asia for example.

If there is a settler and (more importantly) a corporate presence there they can probably convince the UK to annex the Archipeligo and buy off the Mainland states, but they're never going to try for more than that. This would give Britain the strongest claim to the Western Antarctic...

A POD such as you're describing would just make those additional 50,000 move somewhere better, woudn't they? I'd rather go to Australia or South Africa, if not Canada or the USA - You'd have to pay people... a lot... to move to Tierra del Fuego.

EDIT: I see you feel the same way. Never mind.

 

[juanml82]

There is a bit more population. I live in Ushuaia, and here there are about 70.000 inhabitants. In Tolhuin there are about 8.000 and Rio Grande is near 80.000. So that's more or less 158.000 in Argentinean side. Plus about 10.000 in the Chilean side that's near 170.000 inhabitants. It has grown a lot in the last years

Certainly, but, AFAIK, a lot of it has to do with the tax incentive for industries and the touristic sector, both inexistent in the 19th Century.
In any case, if the British were able to populate, even lightly, the Falklands, they can set up a very small colony in Tierra del Fuego.

 

[Petete123123]

I didn't know you were Argentinian (or at least an inhabitant of Argentina)! We already had a member from Misiones, and now one from the other side of the country! Interesting...

Jaja, que copado! De una que soy argento Vamos Argentina todavía!

Whalers don't need to stop at Terra del Fuego, they don't exactly have limited range, there are better ports in the region, and the seas are pretty dangerous.

Which better ports? At almost any part of the Beagle Channel you have good deep ports. In fact, Ushuaia is the only one true natural deep port of the country, as the Beagle Channel is more than 100 meters deep less from 1 kilometre from the coast.

The lack of a port to match Stanley is more or less fatal to the prospects of it being used as a base.

In which way is Stanley better than a port in the Beagle Channel, which is deeper, protected from high sea and which is set in a land far more suitable for living(at least it's green with forests and rivers) and which more economic posibilities?

A POD such as you're describing would just make those additional 50,000 move somewhere better, woudn't they? I'd rather go to Australia or South Africa, if not Canada or the USA - You'd have to pay people... a lot... to move to Tierra del Fuego.

So why did those 2.000 thousand people went to the Falklands, or why people went to the South of the Southern Island of New Zealand? If they went there, there are good posibilities that other people move to this colony. We are not talking about mass emigration, just a colony with a good economy and under British Commonwealth, maybe independent or just like Falklands under British rule.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

...The caliche beds of Chile were the main source of sodium nitrate required to produce gunpowder and to manufacture nitric acid for manufacturing cordite and other smokeless propellants. The strategic importance was so great that the Imperial German Navy lost an entire fleet trying to break British control of access to the nitrates. Only the ingenuity of Fritz Haber's synthetic nitric acid plant stopped Germany from running out of cordite in 1916.

A coaling station in Fuego would have been a major asset. Curiously enough, brown coal (lignite) is/was mined at Isla Picton/Picton Island.

And I'm sure that other commercial interests would have found the harbours of Fuego useful - the whaling industry for one. The clippers were an off-the-cuff offer. I did mention whaling, which Port Stanley and South Georgia both provided support to.

Falklands and Alaska, with a pinch of Newfoundland, may give you the flavour of the Crown Colony of Tierra Del Fuego...

And where's Petete123123 when we need him?

We're all aware of nitrates, but that doesn't answer why the British would establish a colony with dangerous approaches and crappy ports when they have the Falklands.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Which better ports? At almost any part of the Beagle Channel you have good deep ports. In fact, Ushuaia is the only one true natural deep port of the country, as the Beagle Channel is more than 100 meters deep less from 1 kilometre from the coast.

The problem is in approaching the ports. Stanley is safe, the del Fuego area is not.

So why did those 2.000 thousand people went to the Falklands, or why people went to the South of the Southern Island of New Zealand? If they went there, there are good posibilities that other people move to this colony. We are not talking about mass emigration, just a colony with a good economy and under British Commonwealth, maybe independent or just like Falklands under British rule.

Are you really going to compare del Fuego with the South island of New Zealand?

As for the Falklands, they moved there to provision the RN. A British colony in del Fuego would be exactly the same size (maybe larger because you'd need a bigger and more expensive garrison) and less desirable from every perspective.

There is no reason the British couldn't have taken del Fuego in OTL, but they chose not to. Why is that?

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

So why did those 2.000 thousand people went to the Falklands, or why people went to the South of the Southern Island of New Zealand?

To be honest, the south of New Zealand was settled mostly by Scots and the Irish because the English didn't want to. The climate was far more like the climate in Scotland, and even with these few settlers it got hardly any attention. Southland is used practically entirely for farming, mostly sheep and dairy. I mean, the South Island has a lot less people than the north, where it's warmer.

 

[juanml82]

The problem is in approaching the ports. Stanley is safe, the del Fuego area is not.



Are you really going to compare del Fuego with the South island of New Zealand?

As for the Falklands, they moved there to provision the RN. A British colony in del Fuego would be exactly the same size (maybe larger because you'd need a bigger and more expensive garrison) and less desirable from every perspective.

There is no reason the British couldn't have taken del Fuego in OTL, but they chose not to. Why is that?

Then the POD is that the Argentinean government (well, the Buenos Aires government) doesn't try to enforce taxes in the fishermen fishing around the Falklands, avoiding the chain of events that led to the British occupation of the Islands. And, without them, the British decide to settle at Tierra del Fuego.
If we were to go through your last sentence, we might as well close the board. To many things happened or didn't happen for a reason. Yet we expend our time here considering other options.

 

[corditeman]

Don't close the board - it's fascinating!

Britain has had a curious habit of colonising places others ignore. South Georgia was attractive because of the whaling, but Tristan da Cunha, Ascenscion, Pitcairn? That's why I'm inclined towards an almost accidental settlement. A bunch of whalers go ashore with damage to repair, the Captasin logs a deep water port, good fishing, timber, animals, but complains about the hazards to navigation. One man's hazard is another man's defence. The Yaghan Indians are a pest with their pilfering, but nothing a good rifle can't stop. In other words, settleable.

I'd expect a gradual Britannicisation of the Fuego archipelago, with people attracted simply because there's the means to live - maybe as a spin-off from Port Stanley, because of the need for timber. Scots and Irish, Welsh and English, but of the hardiest kinds. If you can live on St. Kilda, Fuego's a breeze. Government support purely and simply because domination of the Cape Horn area is strategically useful. All you needc is for some Cabinet Minister to get a bee in his bonnet about the nitrate trade and the Magellan Straits, and you're in business.

Abdul, take Pete's concept as given, would you? Fuego has enough cold water without adding any more. Why not explore the political and economic ramifications of a colony in being - what would the influences be, given the development of Argentina and Chile?

Pete, you might like to have a giggle by looking at my Upside Downside version Two https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=3249599, which has the British Isles (minus a few bits) swapped over for the Falklands. One of your countrymen raised a few points, so I'd be grateful for input. The same with my other thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=159265 on a planet reduced to offshore islands. Your thoughts on the area would be much appreciated.

Keep this thread moving, folks!

 

[Nugax]

Are you really going to compare del Fuego with the South island of New Zealand?

The extreme south of South Island does actually have a similar climate to del Fuego - hence me saying you might get 50k people to move (the amount that went to Southland) if there were economic prospects. The thing is having a situation where the British want to establish those prospects.

The problem is that whilst the ownership of the island would be quite easy, the changes that would be required in British policy would have effects on the TL that would massively swamp the effect of establishing a colony there. Thus we need a why to proceed, and the ones offered so far are lacking.

 

[Falastur]

Britain has had a curious habit of colonising places others ignore. South Georgia was attractive because of the whaling, but Tristan da Cunha, Ascenscion, Pitcairn?

Let's be fair. The colonisation of Pitcairn Island was a monumental accident and hardly the result of planning nor of any perceived British ability to see a good place for a colony where others can only see difficult terrain...

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Britain has had a curious habit of colonising places others ignore. South Georgia was attractive because of the whaling, but Tristan da Cunha, Ascenscion, Pitcairn? That's why I'm inclined towards an almost accidental settlement. A bunch of whalers go ashore with damage to repair, the Captasin logs a deep water port, good fishing, timber, animals, but complains about the hazards to navigation. One man's hazard is another man's defence. The Yaghan Indians are a pest with their pilfering, but nothing a good rifle can't stop. In other words, settleable.

I'd expect a gradual Britannicisation of the Fuego archipelago, with people attracted simply because there's the means to live - maybe as a spin-off from Port Stanley, because of the need for timber. Scots and Irish, Welsh and English, but of the hardiest kinds. If you can live on St. Kilda, Fuego's a breeze. Government support purely and simply because domination of the Cape Horn area is strategically useful. All you needc is for some Cabinet Minister to get a bee in his bonnet about the nitrate trade and the Magellan Straits, and you're in business.

Abdul, take Pete's concept as given, would you? Fuego has enough cold water without adding any more. Why not explore the political and economic ramifications of a colony in being - what would the influences be, given the development of Argentina and Chile?

Pete, you might like to have a giggle by looking at my Upside Downside version Two https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=3249599, which has the British Isles (minus a few bits) swapped over for the Falklands. One of your countrymen raised a few points, so I'd be grateful for input. The same with my other thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=159265 on a planet reduced to offshore islands. Your thoughts on the area would be much appreciated.

Keep this thread moving, folks!

Why should I accept something as a given? There's no reason offered for the British to move into the area - it just doesn't make sense.

All your examples, BTW, have specific reasons, and Tristan da Cunha wasn't exactly colonized, it was just annexed to prevent the French from using it to rescue Napoleon.

 

[corditeman]

Nugax, Abdul, let Pete's notion stand, OK?

...The Tristan da Cunha reason - denying a base to another Great Power - might well make sense in view of the strategic importance of Chilean caliche. An overassessment of the amount of gold and coal there might help 19th century interest. That would make Fuego a successful mistake - the colonisation might be fastest at the time of the Paramo gold, steady at other times (assume population increase by family production). I'd head any history of it 'A Colony Founded by Accident and Continued by Determination'. I'm sure Pete would agree that determination is needed.

Now, shall we see what the potential is for international problems? Would Britain be more closely involved in the politics of the South Cone countries? Remember that British investment helped the Argentinian meat industry along, and that Bovril, as well as Fray Bentos, came into being that way : paste http://www.casahistoria.net/corned%20beef2.htm into your browsers, and think it over.

Looking at Chilean caliche, look also at Chile's naval history and the involvement of Cochrane. Could the initial proposal have been for a joint Chilean/British colony, that because of the gold strike became more British? If you look up Anglo Argentines on wiki there's also political and economic influence there, enough for Fuego to be left as a harmless colony in the pre-Peron days.

Examining Argentina's history, the Welsh settlements in Patagonia started with the sailing of the converted clipper Mimosa to Patagonia to found Puerto Madryn. Suppose the Mimosa (a converted clipper, note) were to be swept south in a storm and beached in Fuego? We might see a Welsh colony claimed by Argentina in a British-held Fuego.

Post WWII, expect there to be more trouble for the colony as both Chile and Argentina feel their oats and are influenced by Washington. Maybe the USA tries to get Fuego split between Chile and Argentina (present position) but the inhabitants are vociferous in their dislike of this and the Chileans, bless them, would rather have the laid-back Anglos in Fuego than the Argentinians. Anyway, that means a Falklands-style rumbling from the Argentinians and a nervous response from the Chileans. Do we get to 1982 without a skirmish or an attempt at invasion, once oil enters the picture? Or does Argentina try to invade Fuego and get a bloody nose, the Chileans being friendly neutrals? What's the current position - do the Fuegans want independence, with their freedom guaranteed by the UK, or would they try to become a distant part of the UK and the EU?

How about it?

 

[Julius Vogel]

Southland seems to be getting a bad rap here I think! For disclaimer purposes, I'm not from Southland, but I am from Otago, the next province to the north but I haven't lived in either for a few years.

Southland's weather isn't actually that bad, the lowlands and coastal areas are temperate and historically the winters are pretty mild (although that appears to be changing). I just had a look online for weather stats and they don't appear to bad to me, I've pasted them below. Having now lived in the southern UK for a bit the weather seems pretty comparable to the South East*. How they compare to Cape Horn, well, that is another question.

The general issue with NZ weather is that most people live in a narrow band along the coast, usually within 10-15km of the sea. Given the locality of NZ - deep in the South Pacific and above the Antarctic ocean we seem to get a lot of quite nasty cold winds, some places more than others. Southland isn't particularly known for such cold coastal winds though.

However generally the weather is pretty good, good enough to allow farmers to not need to house their stock (beef or dairy cattle/sheep etc) inside during winter. Good enough to allow our fruit and wine industry to have one of their primary growing areas right on the border of Southland. I note that in London I can buy fruit grown in that region during the northern winter.

I'm not certain as to what the reasons for Southland's failure to develop or grow as fast as other parts of NZ, but weather certainly would be a part of that as compared to other parts of the South Island and lower North it is slightly less attractive. I think there would be other good reasons too that would be more important than the weather point.

So far as potential immigrants go, well again, having lived in the UK and traveled around it a bit in winter, I could certainly see that potential 19th century immigrants would be trading up weatherwise by heading to Southland or Otago. There was also a fair amount of communication between the early settler groups and later migrants, so I'm sure the latter were quite aware of what they were coming to, if the former were not.



*Southland average weather

Sunshine - average 1600 hours per year
Temperature range - average 14 C in summer, average 6C in winter.
Average rainfall - 1112 mm

 

[Nugax]

Well looking at climate data I think you're rather off about Southland having better weather than the UK. Ivercargill is a few degrees colder* than Edinburgh in summer and pretty much the same in winter and has 50% more rain, whilst the South East UK is much warmer (av summer/winter temps of 19C/5C) and has about half the rainfall.

UK cities are actually generally warmer and dryer than many other heavily populated places - what they really fail on is hours of sunlight.

Punta Arenas has less the same rainfall as London (about a third of Ivercargill) and roughly the same summer temperature as Ivercargill (14C) and winters a degree or so colder than Edinburgh. I'd say the Scotland:Southland:Terra del Fuego climates are comparable, and use the quite small numbers who went to Southland even when it was part of a major British colony as an argument against extensive settlement of a British base in del Fuego.

 

[corditeman]

Nugax, the thread is about a British settlement...

...Why not look at the possibilities of the setllement? It's Pete's thread - and he lives in Ushuaia, so give the poor guy some slack, will you? I could put up a very strong argument for the Romans not invading Britannia - too far north, awkward sea conditions, too expensive to maintain and the slaves (except for upper class as coachman) frankly useless...

...Four legions and a lot of auxiliaries to capture, three legions and a lot of auxiliries to maintain - worse than the Rhine Frontier!

So let Petete123123 have his first thread...

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

...Why not look at the possibilities of the setllement? It's Pete's thread - and he lives in Ushuaia, so give the poor guy some slack, will you? I could put up a very strong argument for the Romans not invading Britannia - too far north, awkward sea conditions, too expensive to maintain and the slaves (except for upper class as coachman) frankly useless...

...Four legions and a lot of auxiliaries to capture, three legions and a lot of auxiliries to maintain - worse than the Rhine Frontier!

So let Petete123123 have his first thread...

OK, I'll go with the thread. The British establish a colony in Tierra del Fuego. If fails miserably and the colonists are withdrawn to the Falklands, where the RN has a base. As there are now 2,000 too many people for the islands, the rest move to South Africa.

 

[Petete123123]

The problem is in approaching the ports. Stanley is safe, the del Fuego area is not.

Abdul, I live here in Ushuaia. I went many times to Rio Grande. The only part of the Island which is so rude as you say is the Estrecho La Maire, and that's not always, just sometimes. The other part are very calm, especially those in the Beagle zone. And the way our government finished that problem was building two lighthouses. One in Isla de los Estados, mostly ending the major part of accidents, and the other in the Beagle Channel, just because there are some rocks there and also reveal that Ushuaia is near there.

As for the Falklands, they moved there to provision the RN. A British colony in del Fuego would be exactly the same size (maybe larger because you'd need a bigger and more expensive garrison) and less desirable from every perspective.

Tell me Abdul, did you ever visited the Patagonia? Both parts? I guess you didn't because if you ask me I would prefer to live in the forest side or in the windy side, I will tell you in the first one, and if you asked the same questions to a person from Rio Grande, Rio Gallegos or Comodoro, he will say the same, that he prefers the forest. The windy side is pretty awful for living. No wood, very windy, with no green, very little rain, etc. The forest side is far away from being a paradise, but is also far better than the windy side.

Why should I accept something as a given? There's no reason offered for the British to move into the area - it just doesn't make sense.

A naval base, a coal station, gold in the future, more control over the route which goes through the Magallaleanic Channel, more control over the South Atlantic, a good penal colony if they propose to build one.

I'd head any history of it 'A Colony Founded by Accident and Continued by Determination'. I'm sure Pete would agree that determination is needed.

Determination is the way. If not It would go nowhere. If people immigrate there and want to make their new home there, they will and the will succeed.

Now, shall we see what the potential is for international problems? Would Britain be more closely involved in the politics of the South Cone countries? Remember that British investment helped the Argentinian meat industry along, and that Bovril, as well as Fray Bentos, came into being that way : paste http://www.casahistoria.net/corned beef2.htm into your browsers, and think it over

You know, here we are teached history telling us we were an honour Dominion of the UK, because of our economic relationship. In fact, not only go to the meat. OUR INDEPENDENCE IS LINKED TO BRITISH INTERESTS!! Because they wanted free trade with us they invaded us in 1806 and 1807, they failed but the selfdefence and selfdetermination of the people were among the principal engines of the May Revolution.

Looking at Chilean caliche, look also at Chile's naval history and the involvement of Cochrane. Could the initial proposal have been for a joint Chilean/British colony, that because of the gold strike became more British? If you look up Anglo Argentines on wiki there's also political and economic influence there, enough for Fuego to be left as a harmless colony in the pre-Peron days.

The Chilean joint adventure is something that I don't see very plausible because Chile never focused in the island. They just claimed some of it when Argentina started to claim it and they felt their control of the Magalleanic Channel was threatened.
And you are right with the colony being left as harmless. The biggest defence it and Malvinas have are the sea. Trying to create a colony, lets say, in Punta Arenas is way more impossible, as it can be attacked by land.

Examining Argentina's history, the Welsh settlements in Patagonia started with the sailing of the converted clipper Mimosa to Patagonia to found Puerto Madryn. Suppose the Mimosa (a converted clipper, note) were to be swept south in a storm and beached in Fuego? We might see a Welsh colony claimed by Argentina in a British-held Fuego.

Good one there! But I think that if the Welsh realize they are in British held territory they would move away or ask the Argentinean government to take control of the island, but maybe the first option is more probable.
Taking the Welsh as an example of determination. They wanted to live there even if it was cold and windy, and with determination they turned it into a new home. Why couldn't lets say, Gaelic Scottish people or Irish People try to do the same and after some time the British decide to annex them because their colony is prosperous or because it's becoming an important stop for ships, etc.

Post WWII, expect there to be more trouble for the colony as both Chile and Argentina feel their oats and are influenced by Washington. Maybe the USA tries to get Fuego split between Chile and Argentina (present position) but the inhabitants are vociferous in their dislike of this and the Chileans, bless them, would rather have the laid-back Anglos in Fuego than the Argentinians. Anyway, that means a Falklands-style rumbling from the Argentinians and a nervous response from the Chileans. Do we get to 1982 without a skirmish or an attempt at invasion, once oil enters the picture? Or does Argentina try to invade Fuego and get a bloody nose, the Chileans being friendly neutrals? What's the current position - do the Fuegans want independence, with their freedom guaranteed by the UK, or would they try to become a distant part of the UK and the EU?

I think that what will happen here is that as more people will live here than in the Falklands, maybe the UK in an attempt to protect its positions decide to call a referendum in both colonies if they want independence with each colony being a new country, to become parts of the UK, to be united as a new part of the UK or be an independent union of both colonies. I think the second option is the most plausible, taking in account the low population and the neighbors they have.
Also in this case we will have to take some things in account. First, Fuego was never colonized by Argentineans. Second, it was never under control of Argentina. And Third, it is more populated has a better position to defend against an attack. Maybe there will be some invasion of the island, but it would be far more difficult than one in the Falklands, because at best they could only cross in Bahia Azul Zone. And from there you will have a long and difficult journey to the Beagle Zone, which by the way is surrounded by the Andes and dense forest.
So maybe they won't even invade the island.

*Southland average weather

Sunshine - average 1600 hours per year
Temperature range - average 14 C in summer, average 6C in winter.
Average rainfall - 1112 mm

*Ushuaia(forest part) average weather

Sunshine - average 1400 hours per year
Temperature range - average 9.3 C in summer, average -0.3C in winter.
Average rainfall - 600 mm rains as much as half the days in the year.

Some pics of the zone:
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/109735.jpg
http://www.ugr.es/~peruano/antartida/imagen2/escondido.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Isla_de_los_Estados.jpg
http://www.lookpatagonia.com/images/stories/ush_harberton2.jpg

*Rio Grande(windy part) average weather

Sunshine - average 1600 hours per year
Temperature range - average 10 C in summer, average 0 C in winter.
Average rainfall - 300 mm


[URL="http://diegoflores.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/encuentro-tdf14.jpghttp://diegoflores.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/encuentro-tdf14.jpg"]http://diegoflores.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/encuentro-tdf14.jpghttp://diegoflores.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/encuentro-tdf14.jpg
[/URL]
http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/6f/c8/7f/rio-grande.jpg