WI the Antarctic Treaty never existed

I was talking to my friend about alternate histories, explaining the concepts and principles, and he then suggests a possible PoD that he had thought about previously - the Antarctic Treaty never existing, never being signed or never coming into force.

So, thoughts? What could cause the Antarctic Treaty to either not come into being or not be signed? What effects does this have on the other nations of the world? Do some countries start mining, or using the place for a testing ground? Do territorial squabbles lead to war on the frozen continent?

I have no idea where to start on this, but maybe you guys have a few ideas?
 

TelClaven

Banned
I can see the Falkland Islands war being wider in scope.

Possibly some fighting between Argentina and Chile as proxy wars between West and Soviets.

Fighting on the ice, tho, will be HORRIBLE. I can't even conceive of how much that would suck.
 
I can see the Falkland Islands war being wider in scope.

Possibly some fighting between Argentina and Chile as proxy wars between West and Soviets.

Fighting on the ice, tho, will be HORRIBLE. I can't even conceive of how much that would suck.

Very interesting. I can see how fighting on the continent itself could pose problems - perhaps warfare could just end up being limited to aerial campaigns?

Though, I did have a weird idea. What if, much like in Russian Alaska, small hunting or trading outposts on the fringes of Antarctica were set up to harvest local fur seals (or maybe even mine for minerals)? And could such outposts develop into proper settlements?

(of course, this could all be completely ASB...)
 
Very interesting. I can see how fighting on the continent itself could pose problems - perhaps warfare could just end up being limited to aerial campaigns?

Though, I did have a weird idea. What if, much like in Russian Alaska, small hunting or trading outposts on the fringes of Antarctica were set up to harvest local fur seals (or maybe even mine for minerals)? And could such outposts develop into proper settlements?

(of course, this could all be completely ASB...)

Such outposts were set up in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but they closed due to overexploiting the seal and whale population, along with penguins.
 
Argentina and Chile might have another conflict over outposts on the Antarctic Peninsula exploting mineral deposits (metal, coal, ect). Other than that, maybe more research outposts, much more 'eco-tourism' and commercial exploration for valuble minerals. Maybe a few permanent communities to support the expanded human presence.
 
Ill Bethisad, the AH that isn't really AH, has a few small colonies like the one described. One of them achieved independence in the 1950s through a political fluke. It might be slightly ASB but is still a delightful read:

http://ib.frath.net/w/Free_Lithuania

Among other things, the town square is enclosed by buildings like this to deflect the wind:
Smetoni%C5%A1kis_house.PNG
 
Though, I did have a weird idea. What if, much like in Russian Alaska, small hunting or trading outposts on the fringes of Antarctica were set up to harvest local fur seals (or maybe even mine for minerals)? And could such outposts develop into proper settlements?

(of course, this could all be completely ASB...)
Such sealing and whaling outposts were principally confined to the Sub-Antarctic islands. In fact, I'm certainly not aware of any on the continent itself (though, in all likelyhood, there may have been a couple on the Antarctic Peninsular, but none elsewhere).

Then given the fact the various fur seal species suffered near complete collapses (sorry if the rest of my old essay goes mildly off topic...) in the early to mid-1800s, I've got to conclude it is a low probability path:
Introduction

The Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus gazelle) is a member of the order Otariidae and genus Arctocephalus. It is mainly found on sub-Antarctic islands south of the Polar front, though individuals have been sighted as far north as Brazil and as far south as the Antarctic sea-ice.
Over the course of the 19th century the species was hunted to the verge of extinction and since the ceasation of hunting in the early 20th century A. gazelle has undergone a remarkable recovery. However threats and issues remain such as the possible impact of krill fishing; the effects of hybridization and the possible effects of climate change.


Biology & Distribution Of Arctocephalus gazella

The species principally breed on islands south of the Antarctic Convergence (Edwards 2000) though there are a few colonies further north. Some of these outlying colonies including Macquarie Island (Lancaster et al. 2006), Iles Crozet (Kingston & Gwilliam 2007), Marion Island and Prince Edward Island also lie within the ranges of Sub-Antarctic (A. tropicalis) and New Zealand fur seals (A. forsteri).
While the breeding range of A. gazelle may be well defined, the seals’ total range is less well defined: individuals have been observed off Brazil (Edwards 2000) and Gough Island in the South Atlantic (Wilson, Burle & Bester 2006).
Antarctic fur seals display considerable sexual dimorphism with males typically being of twice the weight and length of females. Typical masses and lengths for males lie between 60-120kg and 1-2m respectively (Edwards 2000). Females usually weigh in between 30 and 50kg with a length of up to 1m.
A. gazelle displays a polygynous breeding system in which males compete to secure territories which will typically host a harem of about 5 females (Edwards 2000). At Macquarie Island breeding between females and extra-territorial males accounts for about 37% of pup born (Lancaster et al. 2007). Additionally studies at Bird Island, South Georgia (Hoffman, Trathan & Amos 2006) suggest that males show high site fidelity and frequently return to within meters of the same location for multiple years.
The breeding and pupping season for Antarctic fur seals runs from November to January (Edwards 2000). A. gazelle displays one of the shorter weaning periods of the southern fur seals: typically it takes about four months until a pup is weaned. During this the mother will typically spend three to five days at sea feeding before returning to feed the pup.
A. gazelle principally consumes krill, fish and squid, though there have been recorded incidents of seals eating birds (Edwards 2000). Studies of fur seal populations on South Georgia (Siniff et al. 2008) show that the survival rate of pups is heavily dependent on krill populations, and thus suggest krill is a particularly important part of the diet of lactating females.


Population Trends

Following the near extermination by hunting of Arctocephalus gazelle across most of its range in the 19th and early 20th centuries the species has shown a dramatic recovery, and indeed has actually expanded into territory in which Antarctic fur seals were previously unknown. One such case is Macquarie Island (Lancaster et al. 2006); after the extinction of the native fur seal population (probably A. tropicalis or perhaps a distinct and now extinct species) in the 1820s the island was recolonized from the 1950s onwards by both A. gazelle and A. tropicalis.
These dramatic recoveries have been observed at number of sites including South Shetland, Bouvetoya and Heard Island.

Cape Shirreff, South Shetlands (Hucke-Gaete et al. 2004):
Following their discovery of the South Shetland Islands in 1819 the islands experienced two periods of intense sealing, the first in the 1820s and 1830s the second in the 1870s. Between these two periods the once thriving population of A. gazelle at Cape Shirreff fell from between 95,000 (a minimum estimate based on the number of pelts taken) and 167,000 to zero and other colonies suffered a similar fate. Subsequently, no fur seals were observed in the South Shetlands until the 1902 and it wasn’t until 1958 that a small colony was discovered at Cape Shirreff, an ice-free peninsula on the North West of Livingston Island. Even then it was another three years until any pups were observed at the Cape Shirreff colony. When an aerial and ground-based census was conducted in 1965 a number of other colonies were identified.
All in all there has been a total of 20 breeding season surveys of the Cape Shirreff colony conducted periodically in the 1960s, 70s and 80s and on a more frequent basis during the 1990s and early 2000s. From an examination of this data Hucke-Gaete et al. produced a population model for the colony.
These results indicated not only a vast increase in population from 11 to an estimated 14,000 (or if including nearby islets over 22,000) between 1959 and 2002 but also that the population appeared to be leveling off, pup production slowing from about 20% to 4.6%. This was consistent with which suggested the colonies on Cape Shirreff and surrounding islet had reached about 92% of their predicted carrying capacity of 26,000.
Despite the stunning increase in population Hucke-Gaete et al. concluded that of two scenarios involving either a slow return to pre-sealing populations or a population equilibrium developing near present level: Although both predictions seem plausible to some degree, there is more evidence supporting the latter alternative”.

Nyrøysa, Bouvetøya (Hofmeyr et al. 2005):
Like the South Shetlands, Bouvetøya experienced a period of sealing in the 1820s. Unlike the South Shetlands sealing subsequently continued on only an infrequent basis until the last such harvest in 1927. At the time the majority of breeding seals on Bouvetøya were to be found on small offshore islands as narrow beaches and backed by cliffs. A land slide in the 1950s changed this, forming a platform of roughly 2000m by 500m called Nyrøysa. Over subsequent years this platform has become the main breeding ground for A. gazelle on Bouvetøya. As such Nyrøysa presents a particularly interesting opportunity as it represents not a re-establishment of an exterminated colony but rather an entirely new colony.
The first survey of the population at Nyrøysa occurred in April 1964 and resulted in an estimate of between 150 and 180 pups. Another survey in 1978-79 counted 950 pups, and by 1990 this number had grown to about 2,000 pups. Byetween 1996 and 2001 however, the pup count was oscillating about in the area of 11,646 to 12,590.
Analysis of this data mean rate of pup production was about 12% through the 1960s and 70s, slowed to near 7% over the 1980s and then accelerated drastically to around 30% over the early 1990s before stabilizing between 1996 and the present. Hofmeyr et al. have speculated that the cessation in rapid population growth is likely due to a combination of a lack of further space on the Nyrøysa platform and possibly density dependent pup mortality.
In addition, given the island’s remote location and an estimate of a breeding population of about 1000 seals in 1928, Hofmeyr et al. believe that rather than Bouvetøya having been recolonised by seals from South Georgia (widely suggested as the source of the founding seals for many of the re-established colonies) it is: “likely that a population of Antarctic fur seals at Bouvetøya survived the depredations of the sealing industry”. This makes the Antarctic fur seal population on Bouvetøya of particular interest as it is possibly the source of the animals involved in the recolonization of at least the Scotia Arc and possibly further abroad.

Heard Island (Page et al. 2003):
Unlike the South Shetlands and Bouvetøya, it is believed that due to extensive ice cover Heard Island probably had only a small population of perhaps 500 fur seals prior to its discovery and exploitation in the 1850s. Needless to say such a small population did not last long once sealing started and it was not until 1963 that A. gazelle returned and started breeding on Heard Island.
Subsequent surveys in 1987-88 and 2000-01 gave pup numbers as 248 and 1,012 respectively. Based on these numbers Page et al. estimated that the total A. gazelle breeding population rose by about 3,400 to a total of about 4,100 over that 12 year period. Page et al. provided two estimates of breeding population growth, one based on a number of incomplete surveys between 1963 and 1987 gave a result of about 20%. A second based principally on the data collected in 1987-88 and 2000-01 gave a result of about 12%, which is somewhat lower than typical compared to other similar sights. In addition Page et al. noted an increase in the number of itinerate seals of about 10% per year as well as the presence of a number of specimens of A. tropicalis and a possible hybrid of the two species.

Of cause, the question arises: what effects is this rapid and dramatic population growth have on the environment? The answer is unclear, but there have been suggestions that increased seal number may be tied to the reduction in population of macaroni penguins on South Georgia (Barlow et al. 2002); that seal populations have overrun breeding grounds of some seabirds and that seal related disruption of plant cover (Page et al. 2003) on heard Island may have assisted the establishment of a species of weed.


Hybridization

As noted earlier a number of outlying colonies of A. gazelle happen to fall within the breeding range of the Sub-Antarctic fur seal. Given the two species’ generally similar breeding strategies it is hardly surprising that some hybridization occurs. Until the increased use of geneotype rather than phenotype based profiling in recent years it was believed that hybridization was rare (Kingston & Gwilliam 2007). More recent studies based on genetic studies suggest that hybridization is more common than expected than previously believed but is still rare at most sites.
Besides the stray A. tropicalis reported on islands south of the Antarctic Convergence –such as a number reported on heard Island since the 1980s (Page et al. 2003)- the majority of interaction between the two species is limited to colonies on Macquarie Island, Iles Crozet, Marion Island and Prince Edward Island. Substantial studies of hybridization have only really occurred on Macquarie and Iles Crozet. It has been speculated that the hybridization at these sites is likely an effect of the recolonization of both islands in the wake of extermination by sealers of the endemic populations.

Iles Crozet (Kingston & Gwilliam 2007):
Like many islands the endemic seal population (likely A. gazelle) of Iles Crozet was hunted to extinct in the 19th century. Subsequently the island was recolonized by both A. gazelle and A. tropicalis. Nowadays both species display a growth rate of about 6% per year.
During 2001 and 2003 skin biopsies were collected from 181 A. tropicalis and 164 A. gazelle. Additionally blood samples were collected from 15 and 12 of each species. DNA from these samples were examined for markers associated with the two species. Results indicated that about 1% of adults and 1.6% of pups were hybrids while up to 4% of the population may have hybrid heritage further back.
Kingston & Gwilliam suggested that it is possible that Iles Crozet probably experiences substantial immigration of both species from neighboring ‘pure’ colonies which may serve to limit the movement of hybrids to ‘pure’ populations of each species. They also speculate that there are a number of barriers to hybridization including the possibility that “females recognize conspecific mates based on behavioral traits” and that receptive period of each species may be offset as the peak pupping period for A. tropicalis tends to be around 20 days later than A. gazelle.

Macquarie Island (Lancaster et al. 2006, 2007) :
Like Iles Crozet the endemic seal population on Macquarie was thoroughly exterminated during the 19th century. Unlike Iles Crozet, Macquarie was recolonised by not two but three species of fur seal. In addition to Antarctic and sub-Antarctic fur seals a substantial number of New Zealand fur seals (A. forsteri, principally itinerate males) are present.
DNA samples from a total of 1007 pups taken between 1992 and 2003 (Lancaster et al. 2006) were analysed to determine the ancestry of the pups. The results were significantly different to the Iles Crozet study; between 17% and 30% of the seals examined were identified as hybrids and surprisingly not only were 93 individuals -almost 10% of the sampled population- (Lancaster, Goldsworthy & Sunnuks 2007) of hybrids derived from A. forsteri but 50% of A. forsteri hybrids and 43% of A. gazelle- A. tropicalis hybrids were not first generation(Lancaster et al. 2006) which suggests that the hybrids do have a degree of reproductive success. Over the period covered by the study the proportion of A. gazelle- A. tropicalis hybrids fell significantly, while the number of A. gazelle- A. forsteri hybrids rose. A. forsteri- A. tropicalis and three way hybrids remained rare for the entire duration of the study.

The overall effect of hybridization on all three species of fur seal is not yet entirely clear. The low rate of hybridization at sites other than Macquarie and the potential barriers to hybridization –including females’ selection for conspecific males; offset peak breeding dates and higher rate of extra-territorial mating in harems controlled by a hybrid male (Lancaster et al. 2007)- would suggest that the long term effect is likely to be of little significance. However, all species of southern fur seal display a high degree of mobility, for example seals from Macquarie being found as far afield as Ile Amsterdam (Lancaster et al. 2006), and so the spread of genetic material from Macquarie to other populations cannot be ruled out.


Krill Fishing & Climate Change

While so far krill fishing has been highly limited in tonnage taken and duration in recent years it has been suggested that it is likely that there will be a considerable increase in the exploitation of krill over the coming decades. Given the dependency of female furs seals on krill during lactation it is likely that poor regulation of krill fishing could have a negative effect on pup survival rates.
A study and modeling by (Boyd, Staniland & Martin 2002) indicated for the waters surrounding South Georgia the consumption of krill by fur seals only accounts for about a tenth of the mean krill density across the region, and so from that perspective krill fishing should have little if any impact on the seal population. However, the same study also concluded that during the breeding season the consumption of krill by fur seals tended to be concentrated to a much more limited area and thus krill fishing at an inopportune time and at close proximity (100-200km) to seal colonies could have significant negative effects on pup survival.

The likely effects of climate change a rather more unclear (Siniff et al. 2008). The changes in ice distribution are likely to be a two edged sword, both opening new territory for colonization by A. gazelle but also possibly reducing the volume of krill offshore of existing southern colonies and thus reducing the survival rate of pups. The issue is further complicated by the limited understanding of the food web as a whole, and as such it is impossible to rule out more extreme possibilities both positive and negative.


Conclusion

The Antarctic fur seal has weathered one near-extinction and survived to bounce back on a large scale. Yet, while it seems that the short term is unlikely to produce any more threats of extinction it is difficult to rule out long term risks. Though unlikely hybridization could see
A. gazelle merge with A. tropicalis or A. forsteri. If well managed krill fishing should not be a short term threat, but if poorly managed or if too much pressure has to be applied to stocks, negative effects on fur seal populations are likely. The effects of climate change are even more unclear, the readily understood and predictable effects cut both ways but there remains too much uncertainty about the wider implications on the food web to say one way or another if it is a threat to or an opportunity for A. gazelle.



Bibliography:


Barlow, KE, Boyd, IL, Croxall, JP, Reid, K, Staniland, IJ & Brierley, AS 2002, 'Are penguins and seals in competition for Antarctic krill at South Georgia?', Marine Biology, vol. 140, pp. 205-213.
Boyd, IL, Staniland, IJ & Martin, AR 2002, 'Distribution of foraging by female Antarctic fur seals', Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 242, pp. 285-294.
Edwards, H 2000, Arctocephalus gazella, Animal Diversity Web, viewed 19 October 2008, <http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Arctocephalus_gazella.html>.
Hoffman, JI, Trathan, PN & Amos, W 2006, 'Genetic tagging reveals extreme site fidelity in territorial male Antarctic fur seals Arctocephalus gazella', Molecular Ecology, vol. 15, pp. 3841-3847.
Hofmeyr, GJ, Krafft, BA, Kirkman, SP, Bester, MN, Lydersen, C & Kovacs, KM 2005, 'Population changes of Antarctic fur seals at Nyrøysa, Bouvetøya', Polar Biology, vol. 28, pp. 725-731.
Hucke-Gaete, R, Osman, LP, Moreno, CA & Torres, D 2004, 'Examining natural population growth from near extinction: the case of the Antarctic fur seal at the South Shetlands, Antarctica', Polar Biology, vol. 27, pp. 204-311.
Kingston, JJ & Gwilliam, J 2007, 'Hybridization between two sympatrically breeding species of fur seal at Iles Crozet revealed by genetic analysis', Conservation Genetics, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 1133-1145.
Lancaster, ML, Bradshaw, CJA, Goldsworthy, SD & Sunnuks, P 2007, 'Lower reproductive success in hybrid fur seal males indicates fitness costs to hybridization', Molecular Ecology, vol. 16, no. 15, pp. 3187 - 3197.
Lancaster, ML, Gemmell, NJ, Negro, S, Goldsworthy, SD & Sunnuks, P 2006, 'Ménage à trois on Macquarie Island: hybridization among three species of fur seal (Arctocephalus spp.) following historical population extinction', Molecular Ecology, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 3681–3692.
Lancaster, ML, Goldsworthy, SD & Sunnuks, P 2007, 'Multiple mating strategies explain unexpected genetic mixing of New Zealand fur seals with two congenerics in a recently recolonized population', Molecular Ecology, vol. 16, no. 24, pp. 5267–5276.
Page, B, Welling, A, Chambellant, M, Goldsworthy, SD, Dorr, T & van Veen, R 2003, 'Population status and breeding season chronology of Heard Island fur seals', Polar Biology, vol. 26, pp. 219-224.
Siniff, DB, Garrott, RA, Rotella, JJ, Fraser, WR & Ainley, DG 2008, 'Opinion: Projecting the effects of environmental change on Antarctic seals', Antarctic Science, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 425-435.
Wilson, JW, Burle, MH & Bester, MN 2006, 'Vagrant Antarctic pinnipeds at Gough Island', Polar Biology, vol. 29, pp. 905-908.
 
Top