Lands of Ice and Mice: An Alternate History of the Thule

[The Sandman]

Well, there might well be a religious war aspect to how the Thule will react to European pillaging of the environment until total ecosystem collapse. For the Thule, it's not just a matter of destroying the ecological web their societies depend upon, it's a matter of outlanders actively trying to murder the spirits their cosmology revolves around.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to whether it would take more effort to destroy the Thule than it would to put up with their quirks outside the border areas where Europeans can overwhelm them with population growth. And whether the Thule are considered annoying/heretical/savage enough to be worth destroying even if from a practical standpoint doing so would be idiotic.

Judging by how things were handled elsewhere, though, the Thule will probably need to play one group of Europeans against each other. Otherwise, their fishing grounds probably get deliberately overfished into collapse the same way the buffalo were hunted to the edge of extinction, and for about the same reasons. Similarly, if Westerners are actively attacking the Thule in the late 1800s and early 1900s, expect that any assault on Thule territory is going to involve using explosives to ruin all of the earthworks and other engineering they've done over the centuries to make better environments for farming. And of course expect the usual chauvinism to result in Westerners forcing the Thule to try to grow Western crops, dress in Western fashion and in general abandon all of the cultural and technological adaptations they've made to their environment.

 

[DG Valdron]

Some interesting things will come from colonialism, definitely.

I don't think European fishing will lead to the collapse of fish stocks that the Thule depend on. Tough to say, the populations which we have in and around this area are without modern historical precedent, and their demand on fish harvest quite unprecedented.

But for the most part, Thule fishermen would be coastal fishers. I don't see them going very far out in summers. Certainly they won't have the same deep sea fishing capacity that you'd find with the Basques, the British, etc.

In OTL, the real pressure was put on sea mammals of all sorts, most notably whales, seals and walrus. But most of the harvesting stations were on places now occupied by the Sea Thule, Svalbard for instance. So there are complications. If you can't maintain an effective whaling station, can you whale effectively? Do you have to compromise with the locals? To what extent?

 

[twovultures]

I suppose the question becomes, when the Europeans poach their territories... will they actually be able to do anything about it? And how much of their management culture will survive plagues and epidemics.

Well, the Thule have one major advantage over the (other) Native Americans. Precisely because their homelands are so remote and inhospitable, they're not actually very useful for European settlers, which helps save them from the brunt of colonialism. They will face whalers and furriers, but whales can be hunted in different areas of the globe that are not overrun with potentially hostile natives, and the European ships could target larger whales that the Thule normally wouldn't go for (or would go for more rarely). And furs can be hunted in the Cree lands, or even farmed.

It will of course vary from area to area, but the remote location combined with the higher base population and political organization could allow for some areas where Thule culture will survive.

 

[fasquardon]

One of the real problems with fish management is that Europeans had this belief that fish were generated by the water, rather than being normal animals whose population was replenished by sex (also why fish was seen as a more holy food, no sex = no original sin). So a fisherman could take as many fish as he liked, and not worry about the future, because so long as there was water in the ocean, there would be plenty of fish. On an unconscious level that cultural expectation is still in force. Most fishing quotas are based on zero knowledge of fish biology, with predictable results on the health of the fisheries.

So the Thule, if they resist the idea of fish coming from water, might be able to avoid the worst of European style mismanagement.

fasquardon

 

[The Sandman]

One of the real problems with fish management is that Europeans had this belief that fish were generated by the water, rather than being normal animals whose population was replenished by sex (also why fish was seen as a more holy food, no sex = no original sin). So a fisherman could take as many fish as he liked, and not worry about the future, because so long as there was water in the ocean, there would be plenty of fish. On an unconscious level that cultural expectation is still in force. Most fishing quotas are based on zero knowledge of fish biology, with predictable results on the health of the fisheries.

So the Thule, if they resist the idea of fish coming from water, might be able to avoid the worst of European style mismanagement.

fasquardon

This raises the question of what in the hell Europeans thought caviar was.

 

[Danbensen]

Oh I read a great article back in college about the economics of commercial fishing guarantee the extinction of any given fish stock (demand->fishing->decrease in population->scarcity->higher demand->increase in fishing->crash of local population, which never recovers because other, less tasty fish move in to exploit that niche). The paper recommended some government policies to deal with the problem, which the Thule might find useful: put limits on catch size and from the beginning, when the population of fish is large and healthy. Humans thus cull the fish population periodically, but the ecological "space" fishing opens is recolonized by the next generation of fish of the same species. In the long term, the population sustains itself. I can't find it now, but the closest I got was this (http://www.atuna.com/reports/overexploitation.html). Another good one I read about is declaring alternating strips of coast off-limits for fishing of any kind. These refuges breed fish that move into fishing zones in search of food (of which there is a lot because people keep fishing off the top of the food chain). If the fish get wise and stop showing up in fishing zones, switch fishing zones and refuges. Apparently it's working well around New Zealand. (again...can't track down the original citation but here's something close http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Environmental/Seabed+Protection+and+Research/MPA/default.htm)

 

[DG Valdron]

Oh I read a great article back in college about the economics of commercial fishing guarantee the extinction of any given fish stock (demand->fishing->decrease in population->scarcity->higher demand->increase in fishing->crash of local population, which never recovers because other, less tasty fish move in to exploit that niche). The paper recommended some government policies to deal with the problem, which the Thule might find useful: put limits on catch size and from the beginning, when the population of fish is large and healthy. Humans thus cull the fish population periodically, but the ecological "space" fishing opens is recolonized by the next generation of fish of the same species. In the long term, the population sustains itself. I can't find it now, but the closest I got was this (http://www.atuna.com/reports/overexploitation.html). Another good one I read about is declaring alternating strips of coast off-limits for fishing of any kind. These refuges breed fish that move into fishing zones in search of food (of which there is a lot because people keep fishing off the top of the food chain). If the fish get wise and stop showing up in fishing zones, switch fishing zones and refuges. Apparently it's working well around New Zealand. (again...can't track down the original citation but here's something close http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Environmental/Seabed+Protection+and+Research/MPA/default.htm)

I've seen this first hand with the midwest and central canada lakes fisheries.

I've even spoken to Fisheries and Wildlife officials who candidly admitted that their approach to management was to allow the stock to be fished out to the point of collapse, shut down the fishery for a few years, and then allow fishing again, at a lower level, until it collapses again.

Appalling.

 

[Danbensen]

We just don't know how to use technology to fish. We've never had to figure out aquaculture, although we're going to. In fairness to the fisheries people, laws limiting fishing are really hard to enforce, especially when you're dealing with big mechanized trawlers out somewhere in international waters. Nobody even has a very good idea what shape the fish population is in until nets start turning up empty.

 

[DG Valdron]

We just don't know how to use technology to fish. We've never had to figure out aquaculture, although we're going to. In fairness to the fisheries people, laws limiting fishing are really hard to enforce, especially when you're dealing with big mechanized trawlers out somewhere in international waters. Nobody even has a very good idea what shape the fish population is in until nets start turning up empty.

Actually, we could get a very good idea of fish populations by running test nets, and then breaking down the species and ages of fish caught therein. Do that consistently over a large area and you could get a very good idea of the functional demographics. Add in tracking and tagging, and you could also get a cumulative picture of movements.

The trouble is that's always fairly expensive overall, no one has seen an advantage to doing it. In the Provincial and State fisheries that I worked with, biologists were ready and willing to come up with detailed assessments and strategies to monitor fish populations. But there was never any money to do it.

Penny wise and pound foolish, the same short sighted attitudes that are going to make global warming so costly.

 

[DG Valdron]

To Speak of Many Things

In OTL, there are only about 15,000 to 20,000 Atlantic Walruses, a Laptev sea population of perhaps 10,000, and a Pacific population of some 200,000 animals. This does not entirely reflect historical populations however.

European and American hunting pressure was intense. Between 1848 and 1911, records indicate over 140,000 Walrus were taken. Other sources suggest kills of as many as 50,000 animals in a single year in the early 19th century.

Prior to that, there was an extended period of intense and increasing hunting pressure extending from the late Norse period through onwards. The Greenland Norse for instance relied on walrus skin rope and walrus tusks as a primary export. As the whaling industry developed from the mid 1600's onward, Walrus were often harvested as an easy secondary prey. The Walrus tended to cling to relatively shallow coastal waters, they congregated with great density on land haul outs. They could be found easily and killed easily.

As a result of intense hunting pressure, the Atlantic Walrus population collapsed utterly in the late 19th and early 20th century, and has only begun to stabilize. The Pacific Walrus, where intense hunting came much later, seems to have faired better, but even their population is probably small compared to historical values.

It’s estimated that the natural population of Atlantic Walrus may have been as high as 200,000 to 500,000 animals. At the maximum range, they extended along the north Russian and Norwegian coast, as far south as Scotland, and in North America, down the Labrador Coast, Newfoundland, the St. Laurence and even the coasts of Nova Scotia. All told, the total population of Walrus may have peaked at close to a million.

Walrus and humans did not get along well. Walrus populations probably vanished from Nova Scotia and Scotland as early as a thousand years ago. By 1500 they were mostly gone from the St. Laurence. They continued to thrive in more northerly seas where human populations tended to be thin, but vanished from Iceland shortly after the Norse occupied the island.

What made Walrus particularly vulnerable to human harvesting, far more vulnerable than seal populations, was their slow reproductive rate. It’s the usual story, large animal with few or no natural enemies, well, its going to be at risk of overrunning its environment. Not good for a population to wreck its own habitat in a series of boom and bust crashes. Eventually, what you get is an animal that lives longer, grows slower and breeds slowly.

In the case of Walrus, females begin to mature sexually at roughly four to six years of age. Not bad, but not great. Males in contrast tend to mature sexually much later, by about seven years of age, and may not mate until they reach fifteen. This disparity tends to support a harem-style breeding arrangement with a relatively small number of males breeding with a larger number of females each year. Gestation may take up to 16 months. Breeding takes place at a narrow seasonal window around February when both males and females are fertile.

Calves begin to swim almost immediately. Calves suckle for at least a year, but may spend as much as five years with their mothers. The females do not begin to ovulate again until their calf is weaned. Because of this, a female walrus will not give birth more rapidly than once every two to three years, or in difficult conditions, once every six or seven years. That’s a very slow reproduction rate, and it makes it hard for a species to bounce back.

Long periods of cow/calf suckling was partly a response to overpopulation. If there are too many walruses around, then young animals are in danger from older rivals and competitors, they find it difficult to feed, they stay close to their mothers longer. As a result, mothers breed more slowly or take longer between breeding, and this suppresses the population rise.

Walrus biology took no account of human predation however. Intensive human harvesting stressed the Walrus populations, leaving the animals more vulnerable. Calves stuck close to mothers, preventing mothers from reproducing. Reduced Walrus populations were less able to cope with predators like Orca or Polar bear. The end result was that Walrus biology tended to suppress population growth at the time they most needed to breed faster to cope with human harvesting.

Of course, given the European hunting/harvesting mentality, that might not have made much of a difference. It might simply have meant even more Walrus harvested before the populations collapsed in one area after another.
　
　
　

 

[DG Valdron]

Of Cabbages and Kings

Walrus are benthic predators. This is a fancy way of saying that they're bottom feeders. They forage along the shallow sea floors, their favourite diet is clams, but they eat sea cucumbers, snails, mollusks, shrimp, crabs, tube worms, etc. They're voracious bottom feeders, consuming up to 100 pounds a day. They use their whiskers as sensors, feeling along in the bottom muck until they detect something, then sucking it up by making a vaccum in their mouth with their tongue. They can suck the meat right out of a shell. They stir up the bottom by blowing water jets, or using their tusks and flippers. They've been known to consume seals and sea birds, but for the most part, most fish are too fast and agile for them.

Their habit of stirring up the sea bottom as they actively feed makes them a keystone species in the sea ecology, because of the release and dispersal of nutrients and organisms. The extent of this is debated. While there's a clear impact on sea floors, its not clear how far up this impact or influence extends. Are fish populations closer to the surface, the fish populations that humans habitually harvest, affected? The records simply are not good enough to say. We don't know if overall fish populations were affected or declined because the actual fish harvests or assessments of fish populations during this period were not sensitive enough or not intense enough to give us any real insight.

As effective benthic feeders, however, its likely that Walrus enrich the sea floor and lower levels, which in turn probably supports a larger and more active lower and sea floor ecology, and consequently a larger population of Walrus, as well as larger populations of other bottom predators like hooded seals.

This gives us another clue behind the difficulty of Walrus in rebuilding their numbers. Take too many walrus out of the system for too long, and the sea floors become impoverished and less hospitable for Walrus.

 

[fasquardon]

It occurs to me that there is a downside to the Thule managing so much of their environment and encouraging species that are easily strip mined by Europeans. From the numbers we've been talking about, meat from marine mammals would be a critical part of the diet for up to half of the Thule population. Come the early 19th Century when whaling and sealing develops the logistics for world-wide reach, we could be seeing massive famines on the Thule coasts.

fasquardon

 

[farwalker]

Okay, I'm getting twitchy here, it's been too long since an update. Please don't tell me I have to go through withdrawal again. I barely survived Green Antarctica going into hiatus.

 

[DG Valdron]

Alright, alright, I'm working on it. Update tonight, I promise. Work's been crazy the last month.

I just had to offer Twovultures a little help.

 

[twovultures]

I just had to offer Twovultures a little help.

And I greatly appreciate it. Thank you

 

[Tirion]

I found this thread the day before yesterday, it took that long to read it all. And...Wow. This is even better than Green Antarctica. Much closer to reality, no ASBs needed to create or maintain the setting, even radical divergences from OTL are not only logical but also very probable.

Well, maybe except for Walrus Cavalry. I honestly can't even begin to imagine how that works.

 

[twovultures]

Well, maybe except for Walrus Cavalry. I honestly can't even begin to imagine how that works.

Probably as it did in Family Guy.

 

[Tirion]

Probably as it did in Family Guy.

Lolwut. But really, their posture and terrestial locomotion is all wrong for riding, and slower than a human on foot anyway. And it's a really bad idea to ride a diving animal in water, when you don't have the equipment to provide oxygen and preserve heat.

 

[DG Valdron]

Lolwut. But really, their posture and terrestial locomotion is all wrong for riding, and slower than a human on foot anyway. And it's a really bad idea to ride a diving animal in water, when you don't have the equipment to provide oxygen and preserve heat.

Oh, exactly. Evil griln.

 

[history nerd]

Oh, exactly. Evil griln.

I hope you are using this to deconstruct the "everything must be domesticated and ridden" thing we get on this forum rather than making walrus calvery.... I really like the realism in this TL i would be sad if it took a turn for the bats.