the Orchive

In reality, the actual life expectancy at birth is very similar in both human care and the wild.

​

When making comparisons between two groups, the first rule is to use the same rules for both groups. Otherwise, the result simply cannot be fair, or true, as explained with the example above.

​

Killer whales have been kept in human care continually since 1967 - with the first ever caught in 1961 (a sick, lone animal that died within days), 1964 (harpooned and kept in semi-fresh water) and 1965 (kept in a dirty bay pen). Since the average age of whales caught through the decades was very low, often 3-4 years (and sometimes as low as one), this means there are nearly no zoological killer whales born before the 1960s.

​

So by default, the wild whales to compare with should also start with those born in the 1960s.

​

Beyond that, wild whales (in British Columbia and Washington) were not studied at all until the mid-1970s. Before that, even the fact that there were different subpopulations with different social structures and feeding habits was completely unknown. This was a completely unstudied animal that had up until this point, only been viewed as a monster or a pest.

​

This is very important, because these wild Southern and Northern residents were simply not seen as newborns until the mid-70s.

That means that any whales born before then can't reliably be used in a comparison, because 1) their year of birth is an educated guess, at best (and impossible in an animal that was physically mature when first recorded), and 2) the other animals born in the same years as them - but died young - were never recorded.

​

This means that even using wild whales born in 1965-75 is very "shaky", but at least they could have their ages roughly estimated in the 70s, since they were young and still growing. And again, other calves born the same year as them that died, are simply unknown, so this skews the data unfairly.

​

Born before 1965-1960, meaning animals that were 15-20 years old or older when first recorded, their true ages simply cannot be known.

​

​

If you still need more explanation, let me use a hypothetical human example: Picture two towns, and we're going to compare life expectancy between them. Town A is hundreds of years old, it is known for a high infant mortality rate, and up until a couple of generations ago, there were no birth certificates or other records proving people's age. Still, we're including all the supposed 100+ year old peoples in our study, while of course other children born around their time are not on record anywhere.

​

Town B is very modern, and was founded entirely off of people who were born in the 1960s or later. Naturally, some people have died since then, from injuries, accidents and illnesses. And of course - since no one is older than ~60 - not one person has died "of old age". Birth certificates and every single dead infant were recorded from the start.

​

How can these two towns be compared fairly, like this?

​

The only way to do it, is by eliminating everyone from Town A born before the 1960s, and only including individuals who were known from birth or early childhood.