Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Monday, May 09, 2005

Florid squid prose

Collision detection mentioned this story about a Humboldt squid being caught alive in northern waters (don't bother clicking that last link unless you have a subscription to the Globe & Mail; they have the most annoying access scheme of any newspaper), and in particular mentioned the enthusiastically purple prose people use about squid.

Some descriptions from witnesses sound like the plot to a horror movie -- water roiling with tentacles; otherworldly creatures suddenly launching into the air from beneath the surface; nightfall bringing to the surface vicious predators that slip back into the depths at daybreak, like vampires of the sea.

A Humboldt squid can grow to the size and weight of a hockey player. So, imagine Todd Bertuzzi with bulging eyes, eight arms, two tentacles, three hearts, a beak for a mouth, a brain wrapped around his esophagus and gullet with a willingness -- nay, eagerness -- to dine on his own kind every other meal, and you get a sense of how the squid has earned such a fearsome reputation.

So I went looking for more accessible accounts of this new squid capture, and instead found Scary Squid Stories.

Although they look flaccidly impotent when laid out dead on the deck, when alive in the water, Humboldt squid are powerful, vicious, meat-eating predators, and they are very dangerous to swim near. Around Baja, more gruesome stories* are told about people getting killed by squid than by any other sea creature. Imagine a swarm of 50-pound animals capable of swimming more than 20 miles-per-hour, equipped with voracious appetites and over 1,000 suckers, each containing about 20 gripping teeth strong enough to tear human skin (correct, that's 20,000 teeth!). And, surrounded by that cluster of four-foot long arms is a powerful parrot's beak the size of a small tangerine, snapping and cutting at anything pulled within its reach.

In Baja, the typical "diablo" squid story involves a hapless fisherman who is suddenly caught and pulled overboard while night fishing commercially with lights. Within a couple of seconds, his entire body is literally covered with clinging, biting squid that quickly pull him down into the dark and tear him to pieces before anybody can help.

Oooh, now I want to go squidding. There's a weird twist to this, though: the article was published in Western Outdoor News and it's got pictures of happy fishermen reeling in squid and boat decks covered with their catch, but then it mentions that sport fishing for squid is illegal…it's just not enforced. That sucks all the fun out of it. I enjoy fishing, but I operate under the assumption that the laws are intended to maintain sustainability (and usually are inadequate to do that). I guess I won't book that trip to Baja just yet.

*And as we all know, all fishing stories are true.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2267/997RizId/

Comments:
#24393: Hank Fox — 05/09  at  09:14 AM
I'm not talking about Western Outdoor News, so much, but I sometimes chuckle (or grimace) at the cover art on some of the outdoor/hunting magazines.

One of my peeves is those lurid cover illustrations of black bears or mountain lions in full attack mode going after a hapless hunter, and when you get to the story inside, it's something that happened 75 or 100 years ago.

Aside from the fact of the imbalance of weapons (rifles vs. mere teeth and claws), it bugs me that they have to go back so far for suitably titillating stories of these supposedly murderous wild beasts.

Okay, stories about squid snarfing fishermen off boats I have no previous experience with. Any day now, though, we'll see the cover story in Outdoor Life: "Squid Attack!"



's avatar #24394: PZ Myers — 05/09  at  09:39 AM
I don't mind sport fishing and hunting, and I think they can be good activities to inspire conservation-mindedness...but yeah, the pretense of manly danger is danged silly.

If they want danger, they should write about commercial fishing. My brother used to be in that, and that was scary, deadly stuff. Only it's not the wildlife you have to worry about, it's the cold and wet and exhaustion, which isn't quite as glamorous.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#24397: Ron Sullivan — 05/09  at  10:08 AM
...the pretense of manly danger is danged silly.


I'm glad I didn't read the stuff in the hook-and-bullet mags about eeeevil skeery unpredictable vicious mean collared peccaries* (AKA javelinas) in Arizona until after I'd waded through a band of them on a trail in Arizona (perhaps my manners helped; they actually gave way slightly when I said, "Excuse me.") or shooed several of them out of various campsites. Or, unarmed but in a predatory state of mind after one of those culinary epiphanies, followed one closely as he waded up Sonoita Creek near Patagonia AZ, steadily munching watercress.

*They'll GETCHA!



#24398: RPM — 05/09  at  10:19 AM
True story: I was on vacation with my family in Cabo San Lucas about 10 years ago. My dad went out fishing for the day (I didn't come along because I was still sea sick from the day before). Most of the fishing around there is for dorado (aka, dolphin fish), yellowfin tuna, marlin, and wahoo -- your typical pacific ocean sportfishing. The boat accidentally ended up in a school of these huge squid. They weren't trying to catch them (they were fishing with sportfishing lures and live bait), but they couldn't help it. Every time they dropped a hook in the water, they reeled in a squid. I saw pictures of them -- they were 3-5 ft long -- and they ended up keeping some to make calimari steaks. What makes it more exceptional is that it was in the middle of the day, and most squiding is done at night. They viewed the beasts as more of nuisance than anything else.



's avatar #24399: — 05/09  at  10:26 AM
bulging eyes, eight arms, two tentacles, three hearts, a beak for a mouth, a brain wrapped around his esophagus and gullet with a willingness -- nay, eagerness -- to dine on his own kind every other meal


PZ, I take the above as a firm promise to feed us horror skid pictures and more lurid, morbid details! And what about their lifestyle?

Quod natura non sunt turpia



#24401: senoritafish — 05/09  at  10:38 AM
Ha, where I work we call it Western Outdoor Lies.

They do show up here in so. CA on occasion; they did a couple of months ago, and when they do, the sport boats go crazy. I'd have to check the regs, but I think the limit here is covered under the 20 fish in total bag limit.

I don't know about sport fishing, but I'm had thought there was a decent-sized commercial fishery for them in Baja (or in the Gulf of California, which might be under another states regulations). The local Trader Joe's carries squid steaks quite regularly (although they may also come from South America).

Want me to let you know next time they show up here? ;)



#24419: coturnix — 05/09  at  01:44 PM
Slobering. All. Over. The. Keyboard. Need. Fried. Calamari. Now!

The "bambification" of hunting actually hurts environmental protection. PETA/ALF/ELF do much more damage than hunters. The wildlife scientists in my department do a lot of their extension work with and through hunters' associations. They claim that hunters, once involved in environmental protection and educated in basic ecological principles, are the best and most caring protectors of our wildlife. Hunters go out in nature because they enjoy it. They want to keep the wilderness intact for their children to enjoy.

The new Democratic Governor of Montana won because he understood this and worked with hunters on his election campaign. He prudently shed the traditional liberal "Bambi" idea of hunters as blodthirsty killers.



#24437: — 05/09  at  05:19 PM
Coturnix, ahem. I appreciate your point, but I'm not sure I can agree that hunters are THE best and most caring stewards of the wildlands. Pretty much anybody who actually goes out in the woods regularly can understand the important points of conservation and ecology.

I used to be a hunter. I can't do it anymore, because I grew up and realized it's a bad idea to pursue or kill things for my own entertainment.

One advantage to dealing with the hunting demographic is that they're somewhat organized and rather well-heeled. (You could make these same points about the timber industry, or commercial fishing interests, though.)

I'm in favor of working with hunters on environmental matters. Just as I applaud the new-fangled environmental consciousness of some of the Christians.

But ...



#24445: — 05/09  at  06:50 PM
RE: Working with hunters on environmental matters

It's a good thing. Hunters know that without sound environmental practice, there won't be any more places to hunt. Furthermore, hunters can be nice to have around for certain cases of overpopulation (e.g. deer).

As for the Motive Operandi of the new-fangled Christians, I'm not so sure...

smile

Hey, I dig people who do good things, be they Christian or otherwise. I always could handle the idea of God... when He was the inspirer [sic] of men who performed good deeds.

Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

-Jerry Garcia



#24450: coturnix — 05/09  at  07:39 PM
Perhaps the word "best" is not the best in this context. As a kid I grew up in a big city watching Bambi, alienated from nature (the kind easily recruited by PETA).

Then I met some hunters, I read Paul Sheppard's books (e.g., "Others") and Matt Cartmill's "A View To A Death In The Morning" (both warmly recommended), and talked to people in my department who do this kind of outreach. All that changed my mind. I am thinking about it in a different way.

My total fish-catch is three fish weighing a total of about 20 grams. I never went hunting, though I'd like to go equipped with a camera.

Hunters are ddeply connected to nature and wilderness and love it. They want to preserve it for the future. All they need is a sympathetic ecologist to give some guidance, and some rules. There are thousands of hunters in the country. A few are rogue poachers. Most are highly disciplined bunch. Only very few have enough money, enough skill, and enough luck to kill a really big magnificient animal. Most come home empty-handed most of the time, yet enjoy the outing anyway. When they manage to kill one, it is usually a small, sick, slow individual - the kind that predators would kill anyway.

In any way, these are, by and large, reasonable folks that can be easily recruitd to be the footsoldiers of the environmental protection - there is just not enough ecologists and students to do the job. In my experience, both back from Serbia and here in the USA, hunters are usually very open to new ideas and willing to learn. On the other hand, PETA/ALF/ELF types are loonies who will never understand how wrong they are about these things.



Trackback: Mmmm, Squid! Tracked on: PhaWRONGula (72.9.234.70) at 2005 05 09 21:20:58
Squiddily-diddily Gigas (Dosidicus), Migrating north from its Home in the deep, Causes reporters to H.P.Lovecraftily Paint purple prose while the Old guy's asleep.



#24469: Hank Fox — 05/10  at  12:57 AM
I don't think I ever saw Bambi. (Strangely enough, I missed most of the classic Disney movies until I was well into adulthood. Heh, when I first saw Pinocchio and Snow White, I was a little freaked at how ... unwholesome ... some of the characters looked.)

But I ended up with this broad compassion about non-human critters anyway.

I see a lot of things sideways from the ways most people see them, and one of those things I see is this: Nature has a ... call it a "selfness," all its own.

What I mean is that there's an entire world of stuff out there that has nothing at all to do with human beings, or their needs or desires. And yet has everything to do with our survival.

As I said, I'm all for working with hunters, etc., on preserving the remaining wildness of the world. Even so, I'm bothered that all environmental discussions in the conservationist/hunter vein begin and end with a homo-centric utilitarian argument: "We should save these woods so WE can have deer to hunt." Or a place to go hiking, or pretty terrain to attract tourists. Etc., etc.

The idea that nature has some sort of meaning / value / realness which is totally divorced from any human concern is not a popular idea. I've found that with some people I can't even get them to understand the concept. Hell, sometimes it's hard even for ME to think about.

But ... it seems to me that if every talk about nature boils down to "What can I get out of it?" there won't be any nature left.

I lived in the Eastern Sierra in California for 22 years, and what I first saw as "pristine" wilderness, I eventually came to call "museum-quality wilderness." The whole place was so tracked and trammeled by human tourists, hunters, campers, mountain bikers, fishermen, photographers, climbers, runners, mule packers, horseback riders, day hikers, and just plain PEOPLE that there was not a square foot of it that didn't fall under a human foot at some point during the summer.

It was this big, beautiful, roadless tract of land, and I'm thankful for that, but I got to be more than a little disturbed that its whole reason for being seemed to be so that people could use it. Rather than reach some kind of compromise with nature -- okay, this right here is for human needs, that over there is for nature's needs -- we traded one human need for another human need. Tire tracks for wafflestompers.

I continue to be bothered by that. Again I say, let's definitely work with hunters to save the wildlands. But I don't fool myself that that partnership has any recognition of this weird idea of mine, that ... well, that planet Earth is not all about US.



#24470: Hank Fox — 05/10  at  01:13 AM
Sheesh. Reading back over what I just wrote, it seems the final paragraph will just SHOUT to some people "Here's another tree-hugger who just hates people."

Maybe the only way you can adequately say the thing I'm trying to say is something approaching book-length. So I'll just leave it there.



#24473: Republic of Palau — 05/10  at  04:53 AM
Hank Fox: I think get what you mean, ie that the planet was here before us, it'll be here after us, and what we do is largely an irrelevance in the scope of geological and evolutionary time.

On the Humboldt squid question, I'm still looking for someone who may have recorded the film I saw (on Discovery Europe) made by a cameraman swimming with Humboldts, which rather puts the lie to the 'devil fish' stories. Amazing. If I find a copy I'll bittorrent it.



#24479: coturnix — 05/10  at  06:17 AM
Hank, I agree. But, for practical reasons, one cannot use the argment of inherent value of nature, as it appeals to a minority of people (unfortunately). The utilitarian argument catches everyone in the net, thus is more useful PR technique.



#24495: — 05/10  at  07:41 AM
Coturnix, I agree... both with your agreement with Hank, as well as your pointing out the efficacy utilizationfulness of the utilitarian argument (i.e. for duping the masses).

Yes, I certainly can appreciate the individualness (and splendor!) of nature - and I respect it as such. And, admittedly, I would also like to preserve Nature (and her resources) so that I can use it for my own selfish needs.

And still, there is some sense where I want to preserve Nature, if only so that future generations (of human and/or human daughter species) can have the opportunity to encounter her beauty - regardless of whether our future selves have any depth to their appreciation of the gift bestowed upon all of us...

...A gift, I might add, that was undeniably, positively, and inevitably Intelligently Designed by a superintelligent species of Pomogranate.

Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

-Jerry Garcia



Page 1 of 1 pages

Next entry: Help me out here, people!

Previous entry: The barnstorming brotherhood of bible college biologists

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college