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.
That's interesting if true. What do you base this on? In other words: do you have a source for that?
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.
"How a Leopard Seal Fed Me Penguins" (2014)
<https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/140311-...>
Orcas understand the concept of bait. It is possible the bird was either a gift or a bait to lure in a bigger prey.
(I know Forbes is not generally the best link, but the author of this article is an actual evolutionary biologist)
(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.)
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.
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".
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"
I would suggest, rather than wondering why people on the internet point things like this out, maybe wonder how many people in real life never bothered and just write you off.
When all of that is missing it is harder to glean the tenor or direction of the message.
And then on top of that there is a thing I would call "expectation bias". We expect to see something, and when what we see does not match our expectations we sometimes become blind to that. Conversations on this site very often go "argument - counter argument - counter counter argument - counter counter counter argument". Because of that people (me included!) often read comments with the expectation that it will at least in some way disagree with what was said before. And once someone has that expectation it is easy to misread a supporting comment as a weird and under-argued disagreement.
> Makes me sad.
I do understand. And you are not wrong. Misunderstandings are sad. It seems we sometimes forget that there is an other human being on the other side of the screen too. So sadness is not unwarranted sometimes.
But on a constructive level we can recognise where the confusion slips in and we can add extra words to help lubricate the discussion. I often start my comments with stating my level of agreement. (From "Yes, you are 100% right..." via "You are mostly right, but I disagree with X" to "No, I'm afraid that is not true at all") Basically typing more characters because others can't see my gestures, and can't hear the tenor of my voice.
For example in this case you could have wrote: "I agree that an orca probably doesn't see a human diver as a significant threat, and wouldn't need to use a bait to attack it. After all they are known to attack moose too! ..." (As an example. Of course I don't know if that is what you were actually thinking.)
Could your comment been understood in an ideal world even without that? I think so. Could it have been fortified with a few choice words to better signal that what you are providing are related examples to support the already stated argument? I would think so too.
Again: YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT. And there's no obvious logic that connects the two--certainly the person you responded to didn't see any such logic and said so: "The fact that moose are preyed upon by Orcas is irrelevant here."
As someone else said: "Consider instead reflecting on why your point was misunderstood?"
i.e., take responsibility because--seriously--this is on you.
What is sad is how you completely ignored and blew off what I wrote and then just repeated the very same thing I critiqued, and implied that I was at fault for the "strange discussion"--when in fact there was nothing at all strange about the clear and valid points that I made.
And as others have noted, it's not "only on the internet"--the internet is simply where the vast majority of such discussions occur. But it's not the only place where someone might say "oh, you didn't make that clear, and it's still not clear to me how they are logically connected". And it's not the only place that I have encountered people who reason poorly, act in bad faith, and blame everyone but themselves.
I won't comment further.
Or, hmm. Orca are pack animals I believe. If we killed a competing family of Orca (even by accident), maybe the gift is a thanks for the perception of "siding with my family".
They are apex predators, they don’t have natural predators.
Abstract:
Skulls of many living and extinct beaked whales (Ziphiidae) contain various bizarre bone and tooth structures. Many of them show sexual dimorphism in their skull anatomy: males have bizarre skull structures, whereas females do not. Opinions differ as to what the function of these structures might be. Some believe that these are weapons; others, that they are sound transmitters. This article argues that these structures are the means of visual display. Many of the bizarre bone structures of beaked whales are not exposed like ‘visuals’ of terrestrial tetrapods, but are located deep in soft tissues. Nevertheless, toothed whales recognize objects (including three-dimensional bodies), using echolocation. So, along with visual means, they can ‘see’ and ‘show’ their internal bone structures with echoic imaging and use them as informational sources in social interactions and in individual or species recognition.
I suspect some other basis.
As most people understand the word "dolphin", Orcas are not technically dolphins though they belong to the same family.
I've heard the claim that Orcas are a species of porpoise, like dolphins, but I can't even corroborate that since Wikipedia is claiming that porpoises are distinct from dolphins.
The clearest explanation I've been able to find comes from this article: https://nextlevelsailing.com/relationship-between-orca-kille...
> The classification of orcas as dolphins stems from their scientific categorization. Both orcas and dolphins fall under the family Delphinidae, which encompasses oceanic dolphins. Despite their formidable size and fearsome reputation, orcas share more in common with their smaller dolphin relatives than with other whale species.
So Orcas and dolphins are both categorized in the family Delphinidae which is colloquially referred to as the "Oceanic Dolphins" so, depending on what you mean, yes Orcas are technically dolphins but then ... so are dolphins. Meaning that "dolphin" and "delphinidae" refer to two distinct things even though all dolphins are delphinidae and the colloquial term for "delphinidae" is "oceanic dolphin." But it's important to recognize that the oceanic dolphins is a pretty wide family that includes several species that have the word "whale" in their name, such as belugas and narwhals, in addition to orcas.
More so than the lungs of other animals? Or is it just that "lungs" stand out as an unusual feature in that environment?
I mean, i don't know, if you can't come up with a single clear cut example in the wild in all of human history, i think that is enough to put them very low on the threat list.
B) according to the article there is no consensus among scientists that any of these incidents actually constitute an "attack". So if we are being this level of pedantic, its arguably true that "There have been exactly 0 known deadly attacks from wild orcas in history."
"Wild orcas have never been documented hunting or eating humans, so it is unlikely this relates to wanting a meal." (quote from https://www.newscientist.com/article/2378796-why-have-orcas-...)
Elephants that trample humans also aren’t looking for a meal.
> It's a lot like when we "share" our worms with fish.
So, it is a relevant distinction, the theory of that comment is that they are using them as bait for humans. That they aren’t ever recorded as intentionally killing and eating humans is relevant.
They fight boats for other reasons apparently, maybe they or territorial, or maybe the boats are making some annoying nose?
As one of many, many examples, a galapagos turtle reaches sexual maturity at 20 to 25 years of age, and lives 100 to 200 years.
FWIW, elephants also fall into this category. It’s theorized that “grandparents” are important cultural archives.
Both orcas and elephants are also matriarchal.
I watched a pod of orcas kill a new born grey whale. They may have a different idea of "altruism" than we do.
Humans are undoubtedly capable of altruism, and simultaneously capable of the most egregious acts of violence the world has ever known.
Also, do people ever give the orca anything they want?
https://web.archive.org/web/20251001135117/https://www.natio...
Disappointingly to them, no doubt, the divers still didn't dig in. But it's the thought that counts. Literally, since leopard seals can easily kill humans in the sea and on the land.
Anyway, mammals are capable of thoughtful behaviors towards others outside their own species.
“The herring’s nothin’. I’m going for the whole shmeer!” [0]
[0] https://static0.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/...
