Orcas are bringing humans gifts
newscientist.com164 points by wslh 10 days ago
164 points by wslh 10 days ago
Reminds me of the Killer whales of Eden, where for a period of 90 years or so orcas would assist whalers in catching whales. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whales_of_Eden,_New_Sou...
Perhaps they heard about orcas attacking boats (again), and are working on maintaining good relations with a species that they can’t help but notice impacts their wellbeing.
Orcas (and whales in general) attacking boats died off steeply after the abandonment of whaling by most of the world. With orcas this makes perhaps a little less sense from an incentive standpoint, but it seems that whale attacks and specifically orca attack frequency moved more or less together.
Recently there has been a rash of orcas attacking and sinking small yachts and boats around the Iberian peninsula, which is mostly attributed to juveniles within a certain cultural group. (Dolphin antifa lol?)
Realistically though the gifting is probably not “politically motivated” lol. But with intelligent animals, I’ve found that it’s very, very easy to underestimate the often surprising sophistication of their actions.
Orcas have been to known to intentionally assist whalers hunting for Baleen whales, so I don't know about this theory
> Orcas (and whales in general) attacking boats died off steeply after the abandonment of whaling by most of the world.
That's interesting if true. What do you base this on? In other words: do you have a source for that?
Only source is that I’ve been a sometimes-mariner and cruising family captain since the 80s, hearing about the reports on the cruiser HF nets, and gradually witnessing a change from often aggressive , sometimes disastrous encounters to mostly peaceful or even sometimes friendly or helpful encounters into the 2010’s.
I’m sure there is data somewhere, though. In the 90s, the gradual drop off in attacks was widely attributed to whales that witnessed whaling aging out. I doubt there is any scientific validation for this theory, but it is plausible as there are many accounts of whales with old whaling wounds being exceptionally aggressive, with some becoming legendary in their own right.
> many accounts of whales with old whaling wounds being exceptionally aggressive, with some becoming legendary in their own right
Moby Dick?
Pretty sure moby dick is fictional, but yeah, sort of. Stories often embellish on IRL accounts.
Leopard seals have been observed practicing similar behaviour:
"How a Leopard Seal Fed Me Penguins" (2014)
<https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/140311-...>
Orca Uses Bait To Hunt Bird https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14wWxaMR2Mg
Orcas understand the concept of bait. It is possible the bird was either a gift or a bait to lure in a bigger prey.
Surely we can rule out bait if the cameraman is underwater with the Orca. At that point there isn't much stopping the Orca preying on the human especially if we're acknowledging their intelligence.
They apparently hunt Moose on occasion: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotttravers/2024/10/22/4-decad...
(I know Forbes is not generally the best link, but the author of this article is an actual evolutionary biologist)
The specific claim I'm disputing is that the Orca is using the 'gift' as 'bait' here. The implication that once the human bites or engages with the bait they are then preyed upon. The fact that moose are preyed upon by Orcas is irrelevant here.
The point I am trying to make is that Orcas can choose to prey on large land animals when they are in the water and that they are not using the gift as bait. Why do you think I am disagreeing with you?
Because he naturally assumed that you were attempting to say something relevant to his own claim rather than a complete non sequitur. Maybe in your head you intended to somehow make the point that they're not using the gift as bait but you didn't say anything of the sort so it wasn't your point as written. You also said nothing about humans and moose both being large land animals (and from the Orca's POV it's not likely that it considers humans to be land animals) and that therefore yada yada ... none of this was expressed.
(I see quite a bit of this, where someone is called out and then they say "my point was X" where nothing they had said previously expressed X.)
Only on the internet will "here's a related example why you might be correct" result in strange discussions like these. Makes me sad.
Perhaps but it's the norm. I try to preface what I write with "I agree" just to try and clarify my position ahead of time. Remember that there's a bunch of context missing in text such as facial expressions, body language and tone of voice that would have quickly made clear that you were in agreement ;-)
> Only on the internet will "here's a related example why you might be correct" result in strange discussions like these. Makes me sad.
It would help if the comment said any of those quoted words. The context as I see it was:
1> they could be baiting the human
2> why bait the human and not eat it?
3> They hunt moose
With no further words, it could be intended as they hunt moose, so they clearly like surf and turf and would love to eat a human. Or it could be intended as they hunt moose, they know how to hunt land animals so it's a choice to give a gift that'a not bait.
In person, someone hearing the 3rd comment would probably make a confused face and the person making the offering of a moose reference would make clarifying comments.
I pointed out that he never expressed his point and then he comes back with a quote that again is not anything he said. Sad indeed.
And yes, these sorts of discussions do occur in person, although I rarely encounter people who say things like "orcas attack moose" with ZERO elaboration--that is indeed strange. And if someone said that's irrelevant and they then said "My point was ..." I would still say "Well, you didn't say that".
No, I've had those conversations IRL. Human communication is inherently fraught with misunderstandings.
Consider instead reflecting on why your point was misunderstood?
My reading was, that post said "I don't think it makes sense that it's bait, because the humans are already in the water and they aren't eating them"
Then you said "Sometimes they eat moose"
You did not provide the reader with any language or reasoning connecting those ideas, so it comes off as a non sequitur.
Compare instead with something like, "Moreover, we know this isn't just because humans are land mammals, because they have eaten moose"
Only on the internet, where most of us (maybe even yourself) have the majority of our discussions?
I've been on the internet since the early 90:ies, and this does happen semi-regularly, especially during the last decade. But I have never in my life experienced such situations stemming from an agreeing reflection/interjection during face-to-face communication. Sometimes it feels like people are (un)intentionally looking for reasons to disagree rather than anything else.