Unfortunately home to grindadrap [0], one of the most cruel traditions in the world where hundreds of white dolphins are hunted with high speed motor boats and painfully slaughtered for sport.
I dislike Sea Shepherd as an organization, due to their distasteful methods (and personal bias, being a Faroese resident). But I spoke with several of their volunteers during one of their campaigns, and was pleased to realize that, as individuals, their hearts are mostly in the right place. Nearly all of them claimed to be vegan, which I feel does give you legitimate ethical grounds from which to criticize grindadráp.
However, if you don't oppose the general consumption of meat, I don't find the argument against grindadráp compelling. It yields more meat per killed animal than most, and the slaughter itself is arguably no less humane than most commercial meat production (not a high bar, I admit).
In terms of publicity, grindadráp suffers from being inherently more visible than commercial meat production. Personally, I think this is a positive thing. It confronts you with the fact that meat doesn't magically appear in a supermarket freezer - if you want to eat meat, then by definition a living animal has to die. The visibility of grindadráp has prompted conversations with my young son about where meat comes from, and the animal welfare consequences of eating it.
Most animals these days are killed as efficiently as possible - a quick stun for chickens, a bolt through the skull for cows, etc.
The problem with commercial meat production is pretty much always the mega-farms that have them in horrible conditions during life. It's just cheaper, easier, and results in tastier meat to quickly perform the slaughter.
Note that "religious meat" can be cruel for certain animals as well. Chickens are still a quick stun, IIRC, but cows are brutalized - they basically slowly drown in their own blood, because of the way they are slaughtered to be Halal.
And then companies try to push for more Halal meat, because there are fewer rules to account for, when it comes to Halal (great way for them to skirt the law, legally). The chicken supposedly tastes better, though.
The only reason it tastes better is because its not factory farm sourced in the same way and youre closer to the slaughter date when consuming it. Massive suppliers control the entire chain including slaughter. Halal suppliers or live chicken suppliers tend to be smaller operations.
Handling nitrogen is more dangerous than CO2 for the same reason it is more humane for the animals; you don’t notice you’re being asphyxiated. Not that it is impossible or even particularly difficult to handle nitrogen safely, but it would incur a cost (training, equipment, ...), and inevitably result in accidents when these costs are skimped on.
Unless legislation changes, it's simply better business to let the animals suffer.
Not as cruel as factory farming though. I find it weird how people obsess over grind when pigs are treated a lot worse at a hugely larger scale. Maybe the problem is it is out in the open?
Whale hunting (and dolphin hunting) tends to come up any time the Faroes are mentioned, and I don't understand why it's such a cause celebre. I don't see how this is worse than any other form of hunting or fishing, and frankly I prefer it to most forms of animal agriculture.
Industrialized whaling has done massive damage to global whale populations, but the Faroes are tiny and (to my knowledge) their hunting practices do not have a significant ecological impact.
It's probably because a lot of people see whales and other large sea mammals (and some large land mammals) as much closer to humans than say, tuna. I'm not going to argue about whether or not that's a correct take.
And yes, there are plenty of very arguable inconsistencies (eg: eating pigs and cows is okay, eating horses is not) in how people look at animal consumption, but I don't particularly think that invalidates ethical concerns over whaling.
What do you mean eating horses is not OK, in Switzerland we have plenty of horse butchers, you can find horse meat products like salami in all bigger supermarkets.
Its not consumed in same amounts as beef for sure, but its not shunned by most. And yes there is no logical reason to eat beef (especially calves if we consider the cuteness factor) but not horses, horse meat is even healtier.
I'm not sure how "it's okay in <country x>!" is really relevant, TBH.
There are plenty of places where it's not considered okay by a significant portion of the population, so it's a pretty valid to use it as an example of an inconsistency.
The point of horses was an example of an inconsistency. Saying "I have a counter example" doesn't create a relevant discussion.
It doesn't make the horses example any less of an example of an inconsistency.
Edit: not only that but the whole point of me bringing up inconsistencies was to say that just because they exist doesn't mean people can't have ethical concerns about whaling (or other kinds of animal hunting / farming).
Curious contrast about eating horses. My grandmother used to live in a very humble area of my hometown and I was there often. One day, when I was a kid, there was this agglomeration in the main avenue in that neighborhood: people lynched the butcher because for years he sold everyone horse meat for cow meat, and eating horse is taboo in my region of Brazil. Years later, when I moved to Switzerland I was very surprised when I first saw packaged horse meat for sale in the supermarket right next to cow meat, pork, etc.
>eating pigs and cows is okay, eating horses is not
This is the situation in the UK. Some people trace it back to chivalry, where horses were very expensive and mostly owned by the nobility. But I don't know if that is the real reason.
Although it turned out that British people have been eating plenty of horse. They just didn't know it:
I think it is because of the popularity of riding, people are used to seeing horses in that role. Not quite pets, but in a relationship to people closer to that of dogs and cats than that of farm animals.
Just makes it look like people jump on the virtue signalling bandwagon when they espouse opinions that aren't broadly consistent with their actions. Like eating beef several times a week, but feeling compelled to bring up the killing of pilot whales in amounts that are not at all concerning from a species conservation point of view.
I think a lot of it has to do with how they do it. I believe a lot of other whaling operations catch and process whales at sea. In the Faroes, whales are driven into shallow water and killed near land in sight of people who aren't accustomed to such things.
Traveling to other cultures involves being exposed to seeing things you aren’t accustomed to. In many ways, that is the whole point.
I’m not defending the Faroese here (nor casting aspersions on them, either), more just saying that it’s your responsibility to research the customs of the places to which you travel, and to not go if you think you might not like what you see.
> "The squealing from the whales was horrible. They were putting hooks on ropes in their blowholes to pull them in and then hacking at them with knives."
There are cruel practices in almost every country, including the US or [wherever you are from]. Society evolves over time. Different countries overcome different problems at different points in time, and the time differences are just noise on the grand timeline of history.
The developed world has more or less eradicated slavery, but it was commonplace just 0.5% ago on the human civilization timescale. Some countries eradicated it at 0.4% and others at 0.6%.
Whaling is pretty weird these days. On the one hand you got Japan, which is well known for it, and on the other is Norway, with a similar operation, but remains pretty unknown. They also spend loads of money researching "beneficial effects of whale products" (or something along those lines), to justify the continued whale hunting
I was in the Faroe Islands just 3 weeks ago, including the walk to the Kallur lighthouse. Spectacular beautiful place, already planning my next visit and to explore many more places than I reached this time around.
I was there 8 weeks ago! I'll be posting pictures soon (stay tuned on IG @dheeranet) as well but quite a magical place, you see multiple seasons a day. Super place for introverts, you can book a place in Torshavn for a week and daytrip pretty much everything from there.
The only downside was that you had to pay for most of the hikes, and the money isn't actually going towards any real work getting done.
> There are no guardrails, no warning signs, and definitely no liability waivers - just you, the weather, and whatever route the sheep decided made sense.
I absolutely love places like this; places that treat you as a discerning, rational adult. The sense of being responsible for yourself feels freeing. It is an invitation for you to experience something entirely in your own way.
I feel the same way. I've hiked a few times at one of the locations in these photos with my 8 year old son (under close supervision). I think it's a great way to build a sense of responsibility and humility.
Unfortunately, that also makes it inherently more dangerous. Just a month ago, three tourists went missing at that location. [1]
The photos generally looked like all of the other photos I've seen posted from tourists visiting the Faroe Islands, but I was impressed by the presentation of the tall portrait-orientation image of people atop a cliff. At least on my device, all of the previous images on the page had been entirely in frame at once, but that image required 3 scrolls to reach the bottom, really driving home the height of the cliff.
IMO these images are not average tourist shots. They all have basic rules of composition. The OP is at least an enthusiast photographer who shoots with intention. Good editing too.
Nice write up and great photos. But I have to nitpick- the claim that there are no sandy beaches is false- Tjørnuvik Beach is a cool black sand beach. You can even take surf lessons there.
Instinctively I often think I'd like to live in such a place, I'm not quite sure though why I think that. I'm fairly sure I would in fact not after a while.
What strikes me immediately are the vibrant colors of the houses.
Walk through most any suburban American neighborhood and you'll primarily see neutral shades of white, gray, beige, or the occasional muted blues and greens. Sometimes someone will be daring and paint their house in a deep, dark blue or purple (or even black) but that feels relatively rare.
If near the ocean, typical "seaside pastels" come into view.
What's the backstory to the Faroes' colors? Are they set by some local entity/government? Left up to the homeowners? Was there a push to make them colorful? Do the locals have a particular eye for color composition? Did someone help them?
Why are American homes so bland and the Faroes' so delightfully colorful?
My first thought was that given the rather inclement weather perhaps having a vibrantly colorful house may have historically helped to easily identify one's particular domicile during times of poor visibility.
Certainly a huge part of the color choice in the US is to increase sales. A neutral color is just easier to sell. In the Faroes, this probably doesn't matter. Just pulling a guess out of my rear.
These rich and colourful photos remind me of an internal battle I’m having with my own amateur photography. I’ve always aspired to this kind of styling, but lately been intrigued by how you can sometimes make photos subjectively better by muting the colours, making them less true to life, reducing the contrast, etc. Advocates for that style would call the photos in the blog post “cartoonish”. I guess there’s a place for both styles. For what it’s worth, I think the photos in the blog post are great.
Stunning pictures - thank you for sharing these. And I thought October on the Olympic Peninsula was darks & rainy! The sheer cliff faces brought to mind so many cinematic moments - seems like a Herzog film waiting to be made. How many of the islands did you visit?
Not the poster, but it's my blog, funny seeing it posted here. This was actually from June this year, which is supposed to be the sunniest month. I got to see just five islands, so there's still plenty more to explore. The cliffs and the rough sea are a mesmerising sight, I remember sitting for an hour just watching the waves crash along the base.
I was there a few years back, was absolutely incredible! Really special time. I used this this travel agency called remót travel which planned some fantastic hikes, we ate with locals, met artists, and even the prime minister (pretty funny, such a small country haha). Highly recommend for people (although I don't know if the Faroes has gotten more crowded now like Iceland)
No trees at all on any of these photos, except for one photo which seems to be part of a garden (and maybe it is only larger bushes). I would feel very depressed by that alone.
It's too windy for trees there, similarly to large parts of Iceland. People could probably plant trees that are not high - I don't know what species will feel good in this climate though.
Both the Faroes and Iceland had trees before the vikings arrived and deforested the land, with birch being the most predominant species. But yeah, the wind makes it hard to bring a forest back once it's gone. The rewilding youtube channel Mossy Earth just released a video a couple days ago on their efforts to bring back some birch forests in Iceland:
Fuel and settlement activity (shelter, fencing, farmland, etc), I don't think there would have been much wood worthy of shipbuilding, at least compared to their traditional ships.
While I was there I did some search around and it seems that the wind, weather and soil is just part of it. The largest reason is sheep. They'll eat any tree before it has any chance of growing. So you get naturally sparse growth already, add the sheep, you get grass everywhere. Which makes everywhere very walkable and surreal at the same time. Plenty of trees on cities and gardens.
There are almost no trees. It's one of the most striking things about the landscape and has its own beauty. What they have instead is incredibly lush grass. It looks very green and beautiful but quite different from a typical temperate landscape.
That’s because the sheep graze everywhere and eat sprouting saplings. The only trees are in areas fenced off from the sheep. I agree this is a bit depressing.
"The Faroe Islands are like the child that Denmark and Iceland had, but forgot to tell the world about. This group of eighteen small islands receives the least amount of sunshine in the world per year. Constant rain and heavy winds have always battered these lands."
"Constant storms and crashing waves have sculpted the volcanic rock over millions of years into some of the most jaw-dropping (and vertigo-inducing) coastlines on Earth. These towering basalt cliffs can reach heights of over 400 meters, dropping straight into churning seas below."
OK, enough with the hard sell, what's the immigration policy?
Would've thought trying to block right-clicking on pictures died in the 90s, yet here we are. Trying to stop someone on the internet from saving pictures you've explicitly served them on your website isn't the silliest thing I can think of, but it's definitely up there.
To play devil's advocate, I can understand the mindset. People don't think in terms of servers and clients. This is more of a digital art gallery, and you wouldn't go and grab a photo off the wall at a real life art gallery.
Unfortunately home to grindadrap [0], one of the most cruel traditions in the world where hundreds of white dolphins are hunted with high speed motor boats and painfully slaughtered for sport.
[0] https://www.seashepherdglobal.org/latest-news/slaughter-dolp...
I dislike Sea Shepherd as an organization, due to their distasteful methods (and personal bias, being a Faroese resident). But I spoke with several of their volunteers during one of their campaigns, and was pleased to realize that, as individuals, their hearts are mostly in the right place. Nearly all of them claimed to be vegan, which I feel does give you legitimate ethical grounds from which to criticize grindadráp.
However, if you don't oppose the general consumption of meat, I don't find the argument against grindadráp compelling. It yields more meat per killed animal than most, and the slaughter itself is arguably no less humane than most commercial meat production (not a high bar, I admit).
In terms of publicity, grindadráp suffers from being inherently more visible than commercial meat production. Personally, I think this is a positive thing. It confronts you with the fact that meat doesn't magically appear in a supermarket freezer - if you want to eat meat, then by definition a living animal has to die. The visibility of grindadráp has prompted conversations with my young son about where meat comes from, and the animal welfare consequences of eating it.
Most animals these days are killed as efficiently as possible - a quick stun for chickens, a bolt through the skull for cows, etc.
The problem with commercial meat production is pretty much always the mega-farms that have them in horrible conditions during life. It's just cheaper, easier, and results in tastier meat to quickly perform the slaughter.
Note that "religious meat" can be cruel for certain animals as well. Chickens are still a quick stun, IIRC, but cows are brutalized - they basically slowly drown in their own blood, because of the way they are slaughtered to be Halal.
And then companies try to push for more Halal meat, because there are fewer rules to account for, when it comes to Halal (great way for them to skirt the law, legally). The chicken supposedly tastes better, though.
The only reason it tastes better is because its not factory farm sourced in the same way and youre closer to the slaughter date when consuming it. Massive suppliers control the entire chain including slaughter. Halal suppliers or live chicken suppliers tend to be smaller operations.
Should be banned. Too bad European countries are bending over backwards to accommodate just as backwards beliefs.
Hogs are routinely slaughtered by asphyxiation in a room pumped full of co2. By comparison the dolphins are getting off easy.
Switching the gas to nitrogen would result in a relatively peaceful passing by comparison. Shame.
Handling nitrogen is more dangerous than CO2 for the same reason it is more humane for the animals; you don’t notice you’re being asphyxiated. Not that it is impossible or even particularly difficult to handle nitrogen safely, but it would incur a cost (training, equipment, ...), and inevitably result in accidents when these costs are skimped on.
Unless legislation changes, it's simply better business to let the animals suffer.
You dont need pure no2 for pigs. You can mix in a substance that makes it stink to high heavens so it is safer.
Alas the rest is true re costs being higher and legislation changes being required to force an industry shift.
The high levels of mercury and other heavy metals doesn’t dissuade you from eating the meat?
It does. I eat small portions, rarely. My son has fortunately not expressed any interest in eating it, and I won't encourage him to.
> one of the most cruel traditions
Not as cruel as factory farming though. I find it weird how people obsess over grind when pigs are treated a lot worse at a hugely larger scale. Maybe the problem is it is out in the open?
I think dolphins fall into the category of charismatic megafauna.
They are not “painfully slaughtered for sport”.
They are killed and butchered by trained people only with specialized tools that minimize suffering, and the meat is distributed to all participants.
Whale hunting (and dolphin hunting) tends to come up any time the Faroes are mentioned, and I don't understand why it's such a cause celebre. I don't see how this is worse than any other form of hunting or fishing, and frankly I prefer it to most forms of animal agriculture.
Industrialized whaling has done massive damage to global whale populations, but the Faroes are tiny and (to my knowledge) their hunting practices do not have a significant ecological impact.
It's probably because a lot of people see whales and other large sea mammals (and some large land mammals) as much closer to humans than say, tuna. I'm not going to argue about whether or not that's a correct take.
And yes, there are plenty of very arguable inconsistencies (eg: eating pigs and cows is okay, eating horses is not) in how people look at animal consumption, but I don't particularly think that invalidates ethical concerns over whaling.
(edited for missing words)
What do you mean eating horses is not OK, in Switzerland we have plenty of horse butchers, you can find horse meat products like salami in all bigger supermarkets.
Its not consumed in same amounts as beef for sure, but its not shunned by most. And yes there is no logical reason to eat beef (especially calves if we consider the cuteness factor) but not horses, horse meat is even healtier.
I'm not sure how "it's okay in <country x>!" is really relevant, TBH.
There are plenty of places where it's not considered okay by a significant portion of the population, so it's a pretty valid to use it as an example of an inconsistency.
You said eating pigs is ok, massive numbers of countries don’t have pork on the menu. You said eating beef is ok, yet go to India and try that
Your culture thinks eating horse is bad, other cultures it’s fine, but beef or pork is bad.
Even dog and cat are quite common in many countries.
It's an example of an inconsistency that people have when it comes to what they're willing to eat.
It does not have to be a universal truth.
Cultural bias is definitely relevant in a discussion about why people do or do not choose to hunt and/or eat specific meats.
The point of horses was an example of an inconsistency. Saying "I have a counter example" doesn't create a relevant discussion.
It doesn't make the horses example any less of an example of an inconsistency.
Edit: not only that but the whole point of me bringing up inconsistencies was to say that just because they exist doesn't mean people can't have ethical concerns about whaling (or other kinds of animal hunting / farming).
Horses also eaten in Iceland
And Belgium.
Curious contrast about eating horses. My grandmother used to live in a very humble area of my hometown and I was there often. One day, when I was a kid, there was this agglomeration in the main avenue in that neighborhood: people lynched the butcher because for years he sold everyone horse meat for cow meat, and eating horse is taboo in my region of Brazil. Years later, when I moved to Switzerland I was very surprised when I first saw packaged horse meat for sale in the supermarket right next to cow meat, pork, etc.
>eating pigs and cows is okay, eating horses is not
This is the situation in the UK. Some people trace it back to chivalry, where horses were very expensive and mostly owned by the nobility. But I don't know if that is the real reason.
Although it turned out that British people have been eating plenty of horse. They just didn't know it:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21375594
I think it is because of the popularity of riding, people are used to seeing horses in that role. Not quite pets, but in a relationship to people closer to that of dogs and cats than that of farm animals.
People ride horses in France, so I'm not sure that is it.
Just makes it look like people jump on the virtue signalling bandwagon when they espouse opinions that aren't broadly consistent with their actions. Like eating beef several times a week, but feeling compelled to bring up the killing of pilot whales in amounts that are not at all concerning from a species conservation point of view.
I don't think many people live entirely ethically consistent lives. I sure don't.
That doesn't necessarily make every ethical boundary they try to have "virtue signaling".
I think a lot of it has to do with how they do it. I believe a lot of other whaling operations catch and process whales at sea. In the Faroes, whales are driven into shallow water and killed near land in sight of people who aren't accustomed to such things.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45209587
Traveling to other cultures involves being exposed to seeing things you aren’t accustomed to. In many ways, that is the whole point.
I’m not defending the Faroese here (nor casting aspersions on them, either), more just saying that it’s your responsibility to research the customs of the places to which you travel, and to not go if you think you might not like what you see.
It's also fine to say it's cruel as fuck.
> "The squealing from the whales was horrible. They were putting hooks on ropes in their blowholes to pull them in and then hacking at them with knives."
There are cruel practices in almost every country, including the US or [wherever you are from]. Society evolves over time. Different countries overcome different problems at different points in time, and the time differences are just noise on the grand timeline of history.
The developed world has more or less eradicated slavery, but it was commonplace just 0.5% ago on the human civilization timescale. Some countries eradicated it at 0.4% and others at 0.6%.
Whaling is pretty weird these days. On the one hand you got Japan, which is well known for it, and on the other is Norway, with a similar operation, but remains pretty unknown. They also spend loads of money researching "beneficial effects of whale products" (or something along those lines), to justify the continued whale hunting
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think dolphin hunting is not a tradition. It was not possible until faster motor boats were available.
That's the reason I will never visit the islands. I can't do much, but I sure can't give them my money
I was in the Faroe Islands just 3 weeks ago, including the walk to the Kallur lighthouse. Spectacular beautiful place, already planning my next visit and to explore many more places than I reached this time around.
Edited to add: I put a handful of pics on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/p/DO0mTX3DE1I/?img_index=1 (and some videos on my profile too). I was lucky to have sunshine almost the whole time I was there.
I was there 8 weeks ago! I'll be posting pictures soon (stay tuned on IG @dheeranet) as well but quite a magical place, you see multiple seasons a day. Super place for introverts, you can book a place in Torshavn for a week and daytrip pretty much everything from there.
The only downside was that you had to pay for most of the hikes, and the money isn't actually going towards any real work getting done.
Do the hikes add up?
> There are no guardrails, no warning signs, and definitely no liability waivers - just you, the weather, and whatever route the sheep decided made sense.
I absolutely love places like this; places that treat you as a discerning, rational adult. The sense of being responsible for yourself feels freeing. It is an invitation for you to experience something entirely in your own way.
I feel the same way. I've hiked a few times at one of the locations in these photos with my 8 year old son (under close supervision). I think it's a great way to build a sense of responsibility and humility.
Unfortunately, that also makes it inherently more dangerous. Just a month ago, three tourists went missing at that location. [1]
[1] https://local.fo/three-persons-missing-after-visiting-vagar-...
I feel the same way, I am a social Darwinist too.
I first heard about these islands when they built a roundabout under the ocean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVD0hG-_5gQ&t=47s
Non-video information page: https://visitfaroeislands.com/en/plan-your-stay/getting-arou...
Wow super cool. That’s got to be a ton of money to spend on these islands with such a small population.
It was (by major western country standards) remarkably cheap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EruSZNI4th4
The photos generally looked like all of the other photos I've seen posted from tourists visiting the Faroe Islands, but I was impressed by the presentation of the tall portrait-orientation image of people atop a cliff. At least on my device, all of the previous images on the page had been entirely in frame at once, but that image required 3 scrolls to reach the bottom, really driving home the height of the cliff.
IMO these images are not average tourist shots. They all have basic rules of composition. The OP is at least an enthusiast photographer who shoots with intention. Good editing too.
Were there photos? All I saw was a few paragraphs of text.
There are, but you have to run enough of the javascript on the page and from the cdn for them to to show up.
It's full of images. Works on my phone
Nice write up and great photos. But I have to nitpick- the claim that there are no sandy beaches is false- Tjørnuvik Beach is a cool black sand beach. You can even take surf lessons there.
Thanks for pointing it out. Need to visit again and explore more. I'll fix it in a bit.
Digital nomad grant - free housing and workspace to the recipients. Deadline 15 Oct. https://arcticdigitalnomads.com/grant/
Wonderful photos.
Instinctively I often think I'd like to live in such a place, I'm not quite sure though why I think that. I'm fairly sure I would in fact not after a while.
What strikes me immediately are the vibrant colors of the houses.
Walk through most any suburban American neighborhood and you'll primarily see neutral shades of white, gray, beige, or the occasional muted blues and greens. Sometimes someone will be daring and paint their house in a deep, dark blue or purple (or even black) but that feels relatively rare.
If near the ocean, typical "seaside pastels" come into view.
What's the backstory to the Faroes' colors? Are they set by some local entity/government? Left up to the homeowners? Was there a push to make them colorful? Do the locals have a particular eye for color composition? Did someone help them?
Why are American homes so bland and the Faroes' so delightfully colorful?
So many questions!
My first thought was that given the rather inclement weather perhaps having a vibrantly colorful house may have historically helped to easily identify one's particular domicile during times of poor visibility.
It looks to me to be a Danish thing as I’ve seen that pattern in pictures of Greenland too.
Certainly a huge part of the color choice in the US is to increase sales. A neutral color is just easier to sell. In the Faroes, this probably doesn't matter. Just pulling a guess out of my rear.
I've noticed colorful houses in Greenland and Svalbard, too. I think it's to combat the bleakness, remoteness, and coldness in winter
This reminds me of this place in Busan South Korea I forgot the name of
Gamcheon Culture Village ?
Fun fact, Faroe islands have some of the highest birth rates in Europe. Above replacement! The rest of Europe should study them.
These rich and colourful photos remind me of an internal battle I’m having with my own amateur photography. I’ve always aspired to this kind of styling, but lately been intrigued by how you can sometimes make photos subjectively better by muting the colours, making them less true to life, reducing the contrast, etc. Advocates for that style would call the photos in the blog post “cartoonish”. I guess there’s a place for both styles. For what it’s worth, I think the photos in the blog post are great.
Stunning pictures - thank you for sharing these. And I thought October on the Olympic Peninsula was darks & rainy! The sheer cliff faces brought to mind so many cinematic moments - seems like a Herzog film waiting to be made. How many of the islands did you visit?
Not the poster, but it's my blog, funny seeing it posted here. This was actually from June this year, which is supposed to be the sunniest month. I got to see just five islands, so there's still plenty more to explore. The cliffs and the rough sea are a mesmerising sight, I remember sitting for an hour just watching the waves crash along the base.
I was there a few years back, was absolutely incredible! Really special time. I used this this travel agency called remót travel which planned some fantastic hikes, we ate with locals, met artists, and even the prime minister (pretty funny, such a small country haha). Highly recommend for people (although I don't know if the Faroes has gotten more crowded now like Iceland)
No trees at all on any of these photos, except for one photo which seems to be part of a garden (and maybe it is only larger bushes). I would feel very depressed by that alone.
It's too windy for trees there, similarly to large parts of Iceland. People could probably plant trees that are not high - I don't know what species will feel good in this climate though.
Both the Faroes and Iceland had trees before the vikings arrived and deforested the land, with birch being the most predominant species. But yeah, the wind makes it hard to bring a forest back once it's gone. The rewilding youtube channel Mossy Earth just released a video a couple days ago on their efforts to bring back some birch forests in Iceland:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-pT56a5ZUc
Was it just for fuel? I don't imagine birch being sufficiently large for shipbuilding. Were there larger diameter trees?
Fuel and settlement activity (shelter, fencing, farmland, etc), I don't think there would have been much wood worthy of shipbuilding, at least compared to their traditional ships.
While I was there I did some search around and it seems that the wind, weather and soil is just part of it. The largest reason is sheep. They'll eat any tree before it has any chance of growing. So you get naturally sparse growth already, add the sheep, you get grass everywhere. Which makes everywhere very walkable and surreal at the same time. Plenty of trees on cities and gardens.
There are a few sheltered spots on the islands with manmade 'forests' like Kunoy Park.
It is not the wind, it is the sheep which eat the trees before the grow big. Trees grow in some gardens and parks, so it is possible.
There are almost no trees. It's one of the most striking things about the landscape and has its own beauty. What they have instead is incredibly lush grass. It looks very green and beautiful but quite different from a typical temperate landscape.
That’s because the sheep graze everywhere and eat sprouting saplings. The only trees are in areas fenced off from the sheep. I agree this is a bit depressing.
> Faroe's name comes from a combination of fær (sheep) and eyjar (islands).
I have always thought it came from "fjær" (far). According to Wikipedia it is debated, and it may even come from "fara" (to travel).
There is similar uncertainty about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fårö#Etymology
"fara" appears to be cognate with English "fare" (which used to mean "journey" and now means how much you pay for one)
And “journey” comes from the Latin diurnum, for day, which also has the same root as per diem.
Time (and distance!) are money.
Or how about the Danish “får” (sheep) and “ø” (Island)?
The name is older than Danish as a distinct language. The suggested etymology is from Old Norse.
> The Faroe Islands are like the child that Denmark and Iceland had, but forgot to tell the world about.
I suppose everyone in Greece knows them. :)
Wow. I've moved away from places because of constant grey skies. The photos are beautiful, but while I'd visit I'd never be able to live there.
Great photos and blog post. I hope other locations on the site would be populated with similar content in the future.
I intend to! I didn't post this here but all these comments have inspired me to flesh this out a bit more.
"The Faroe Islands are like the child that Denmark and Iceland had, but forgot to tell the world about. This group of eighteen small islands receives the least amount of sunshine in the world per year. Constant rain and heavy winds have always battered these lands."
"Constant storms and crashing waves have sculpted the volcanic rock over millions of years into some of the most jaw-dropping (and vertigo-inducing) coastlines on Earth. These towering basalt cliffs can reach heights of over 400 meters, dropping straight into churning seas below."
OK, enough with the hard sell, what's the immigration policy?
You can (or could, least) move to svalbard and just live there, if you like the cold and darkness.
Beautiful photos, thank you.
Would've thought trying to block right-clicking on pictures died in the 90s, yet here we are. Trying to stop someone on the internet from saving pictures you've explicitly served them on your website isn't the silliest thing I can think of, but it's definitely up there.
In Firefox go to Tools|Page Info. Click on the Media tab. Select the image you want in the list box and click the Save As .. button.
To play devil's advocate, I can understand the mindset. People don't think in terms of servers and clients. This is more of a digital art gallery, and you wouldn't go and grab a photo off the wall at a real life art gallery.
People take photos of artworks at galleries all the time, so I'm not sure this analogy works.
Makes perfect sense to me
I mean, there's always Snipping Tool but the images are more authentic in the original JPEG.
The originals are relatively high res too so better to just use inspector.
Sheep! https://photos.smugmug.com/Faroe2025/n-brbsQb/Faroeselected/...
StopTheMadness for Safari makes this kind of shit go away.