I just caught a brief BBC story about 7 lost Russian researchers. Their basecamp was destroyed by a massive ice ridge, the immediate ice sheet broken up. They are afloat somewhere in the winter dark with a week's supply of provisions. A difficult SAR is underway. May the spirit of Shakelton be with them.

They were all sucessfully rescued today.
Apparently the ice broke up beneath them, sending huge blocks of ice upwards, crushing most of their camp.
The rescue was hampered due to very low light levels, bad weather, and the fact the ice flow they were on was moving 3-4 miles a day.
Here's the link with all the info:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=498654

For once theres a happy ending.

Chris- I thought shackelton perished on the ice. I could be wrong though <img src="images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Sorry - here's an up to date link - editing has a strange habit of not working to well <img src="images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/06/russia.arctic/

Shackelton and his entire crew survived the ill-fated expedition. He later returned to Antarctica, where he died of natural causes, I think (I believe it was a heart attack) and was buried there.

Not all of his party survived. One of his crew brought his cat along. Being an animal person, I was apalled to learn he had the crewmember shoot the animal. I know it was a different time and all that. But, survival or not, I consider it inexcusable.

Did he shoot the animal for food? I wouldn't imagine it was for sport. It must be hard to shoot your beloved pet for whatever reason, so I wouldn't accuse him of animal cruelty. The fact he got someone else to shot the cat may say something about him. Prehaps he had no choice. Either the cat was injured, or rabid or maybe it was the cats life or his.
I'm going to have to read the story!

No, not food. He said he couldn't risk running out of food by having to feed a cat. At any rate, he didn't want to be slowed down by anyone or anything. I lost a lot of my respect for him when I read that. To me, our humanity is largely defined by our treatment of the so-called "lower" animals. To Shackleton, the cat was expendable. Very cold-blooded, I think. I watched the special on the expedition, and it was pretty obvious the cat was killed because Shackleton didn't want to bother with it.

The same afternoon that the cat was killed Shackleton also had one sickly dog and three pups killed. "We could not undertake the maintenance of weaklings under the new conditions." The next day they began their trek across the ice. The men were allowed 2 lbs of personal effects. Shackleton begrudged that weight but realized that "The journey might be a long one, and there was a possibility of a winter in improvised quarters on an inhospitable coast at the other end. A man under such conditions needs something to occupy his thoughts,....." I hardly think Shackleton was a cold blooded cat killer but rather that he was not afraid to make any hard choice to ensure the survival of his men in what he clearly recognized as a challenge that some might not survive.

Quotes are from South by Ernest Shackleton

Ed

Hindsight is always 20-20. We weren't there and I think it accomplishes little to try and second guess why someone makes a certain decision unless you are trying to learn something from it. Shackleton was stuck in one of the most remote, inhospitable places in the world, with absolutely no hope of any outside help, and in a situation that almost defied description. The fact that anyone at all came back from that 1915 expedition is amazing and the testament to a leader of the highest caliber, who focused on getting his men home against impossible odds.

"Didn't want to" and "couldn't afford to" are two very different things.

As far as our "humanity" being defined by the way we treat "lower" animals, humans have been hunting those animals for food and survival for pretty much all of our existence. Even today, there are cultures in North America where, if you tell them you're a vegetarian, they simply won't understand the concept. To say that they're inhuman, or subhuman, because they don't subscribe to a modern philosophy (that is shared only by a tiny minority), is an attitude I cannot agree with.

Shackelton was in charge, he was responsible for the lives of his men, and he made a command decision. I don't see anything reprehensible in that. YMMV