Arctic Warming Hurts Native Hunters

Rob

Sun Aug 19 13:26:37 -0700 2007

manage

There is only one law that applies to all living things in nature...adapt or die.  The climate has been changing as long as there has been a climate.  Some species adapted.  Some died.
I am not sure who we are supposed to feel sorry for here...the Inuit hunter who may go hungry (or may have to go to the grocery store), or the walrus that may go hungry...or may get poked with sharp things by Inuit hunters...and is this not a good thing for clams and other mollusks?
I am curious about one thing...how does the melting of the ice result in deeper water under the ice?  Ice melting results in reduction of area coverage...which would cause the edges of the ice coverage to retreat towards the shore...which should reduce the depth of the water below the ice.  Are you saying the ice disappears near the shore but persists in offshore waters?  
This article has the flavor of that infamous "oh, the poor polar bear is stranded on a little ice floe" picture.  (and the ad under your post suggests some linkage)  Polar bears look cute, and we tend to anthropomorphize cute animals.  We put ourselves in their place, and if we were standing on a little ice floe in the middle of the ocean, we would be pretty screwed, cause the water is cold and the shore is far, and we would not survive.  Of course, the caption of the photo does not include the information that polar bears are strong swimmers; they swim across bays or wide leads without hesitation. They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances. They've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.) (Stirling, 1988).  That polar bear ain't stranded, it's just taking a little break and maybe eyeing the photographer to determine whether he is prey.  The main use a polar bear has for that little ice floe is as a butcher block.
And again, what about the cute seals?  Isn't a decline in the polar bear population good for them? 
I have been asking the question about what about the benefits of the hunted species for a reason...I want to make a point.  There are winners and losers in climate change and evolution.  Reduction in predator population benefits prey population.  Granted, I have never met a cute mollusk, but you see what I am saying.  They are all living creatures; why do we value the fuzzy ones more than the slimy ones?  Think about that...fix in your mind the value biases....
Now, lets talk about humans.  Climate change will make some regions warmer, some regions colder, some regions wetter, some regions dryer.  Humans live in all these areas.  Some humans will be detrimentally affected.  Some humans will benefit.  Is it not arrogant to declare that the entire global population should sacrifice a significant portion of their economic output to make sure that those humans who live in a temperate climate continue to do so, to the detriment of those in places like Siberia or Alaska?  The catastrophic predictions seem to be centered around the effects on upper middle class Americans.  The unspoken assumptions of the Global Warming movement are inherently racist, because they seek to maintain the status quo at the expense of others, [not fuzzy] who live in severe climates...The status quo is good for the people in temperate areas, but a guy in Siberia would not agree....I mean, it is OK if America, desiring to maintain it's current climactic advantages, spends money to combat climate change...but the movement global, which puts Siberians in the position of paying money to continue to freeze their toes off (literally).  If Alaska became the new agricultural center of the nation, do you think those Inuit hunters would still be worrying about killing a walrus to make it?  Or would they become wealthy ranchers?  I love the rising sea level arguments...the truth of that is that only very wealthy people in this country can afford seaside property...the poor people probably would not even notice the sea level rise, except they would suddenly own waterfront property and could sell it to the rich dudes...

Arctic Warming Hurts Native Hunters

President4242

Mon Aug 20 08:58:29 -0700 2007

manage

I mainly agree with you, but this factual question needs to be answered:

 Are you saying the ice disappears near the shore but persists in offshore waters?  

Due to the fact that the arctic ocean is centered on the North Pole, this is pretty much a given- an ice cap with land on two sides becomes an ice cap surrounded by water as it shrinks, with the deepest water under the center of the ice cap.

As for the rest, yes, it's an adapt or die situation- just as in the little ice age, the Vikings who thought that eating sea mammals was something only the "primitive" Inuit did died out.  It's interesting to note that the same stubborness exists among the Inuit.

Arctic Warming Hurts Native Hunters

Rob

Mon Aug 20 16:30:07 -0700 2007

manage

From the source article:
In Wainwright last week, word spread over the village VHF radio of about 20 walruses swimming nearby. They may have been part of a group gathered on shore not far from the village, which usually doesn't happen until fall, Peetook said.

"I guess they have no ice to go to so they are hauling out on the beach."

Peetook grabbed his skiff, gun -- and a small seal harpoon rigged with a float, which he doesn't need during a normal ice hunt. The hunters shot four animals about five miles from home, he said.

He caught a young male, the first walrus he'd ever shot while it was in the water.

The hunters tied the heavy animals to the boats and towed them to Wainwright. Adult walruses weigh more than a ton, so several men muscled the animals onto the beach for butchering.

You know, I have an Idea here...maybe global warming is not the culprit.  Evolution in action.  The dumb walruses get hauled up on the beach to be butchered.  The more evolutionary fit walruses get the f**** OUTA DODGE!

So, Where's Waldo?

I interpret the previous link to mean that walruses like ice.  Duh.  When the ice gets farther from shore, the Inuit hunters have a harder time turning them into commodities because they are farther away.  I have not been able to find any real evidence that the walruses are going hungry due to the deeper water.  That fact is unsupported in the source article.

You know, I sense a political correctness dielectric here...one plate is saving the endangered walrus from global warming induced ice retreat.  The other plate is making the walrus available to be butchered to maintain the native population's traditional lifestyles....I would suggest that if a Florida redneck traveled to the Inuit homeland and brutally killed a walrus, cause "I love to kill them critters.  Fill up the freezer, you know?  And, the tusks, I can carve little naked women out of them, yall.  And, hey, little Bubba, I just carve a little cube of blubber out of that thing, and he don't cry for hours!  Me and the Missus really like that...know what I mean?  Gitter Done!"  that he would be prosecuted for felony animal cruelty.  Don't believe it?  Research the felony animal abuse charges leveled against Bubba the Love Sponge for butchering a pig, like any hunter would do, on the radio.

How do arctic people benefit from the walrus?

The arctic people in Alaska use the walrus for many things. The meat is eaten by the villagers and fed to the dogs, the skin is used to make umiak (walrus hide boats) boats, and the intestines are used for rain coats, window-covers, and floats. They use the ivory tusks and carve beautiful pictures on them and make a lot of different objects with them like necklaces. The bones are used to make spear heads.

In the past native mothers would use the walrus blubber as a pacifier for her baby. She would take a chunk of blubber, put a stick through it sideways and let her baby suck on it.

The oil is also used for food, light in oil lamps and to help heat arctic homes. Natives will tan and oil the hide to make durable covers for their large skin boats.