Mystery orcas from afar thrill Seattle-area whale watchers63%

By John Ryan0%

3/14/2026, 1:10:51 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Representativeness Heuristic, and Overconfidence Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 26.9% saturation with 211 hits. Analysis detected 734 faulty-reasoning hits from 783 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58% and a BS Rank of 63% (7,937 of 21,171 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 62.50% of the article peer group.

Three mystery whales have been surprising whale watchers from Canada to Olympia. 
When somebody gets the thrill of seeing an orca in Northwest waters, that whale is almost always well known. 
Scientists have probably given it a number and documented its family tree, perhaps even its DNA. 
Whale lovers have probably given it a cutesy name, like Yoda or Kelp. 
But on March 6, a trio of orcas showed up in Canada’s busy Vancouver Harbour, later heading south to Seattle, Tacoma, and Olympia, that were a mystery to scientists. 
For decades, researchers have compiled photographic catalogs of essentially all the orcas of the Pacific Northwest, including the endangered southern resident killer whales and the more abundant, mammal-eating Bigg’s killer whales, also known as transients. 
Photos taken during the four days that the trio of whales spent in a busy harbor bounded by Vancouver’s Lions Gate and Trans-Canada Highway bridges showed these were Bigg’s killer whales, but they matched none of the whales in the catalogs. 
“We couldn't place these individuals,” said Jared Towers, head of Bay Cetology, a whale-research organization based in Alert Bay, British Columbia. 
“At first, the photos weren't great quality, but from what we could see, these whales were new. 
It took a few days, but when we finally got good photos, we were able to confirm that they were indeed new whales for the region.” 
Towers said it was very rare for a new orca to be spotted anywhere in British Columbia. 
“In the Salish Sea, it's absolutely unheard of,” he added. 
Higher-quality photos revealed the trio had highly unusual, circular markings, about the size of a large chocolate-chip cookie. 
“One of the things that was really notable were these circular scars, which are remnants from cookie-cutter shark bites,” said Gary Sutton, a whale researcher with the Vancouver-based nonprofit Ocean Wise. 
Cookie-cutter sharks live far from land in the deep, open ocean, usually in much warmer waters, typically south of Hawaii. 
The small sharks, sometimes called cigar sharks, spend their days 3,000 feet or more underwater and have undersides that glow green in the ocean depths. 
They rise closer to the surface at night. 
How this tiny shark feeds might be its most unusual characteristic: It latches onto much larger prey with sucking lips and sharp teeth, then spins its body to remove a cookie-shaped plug of flesh from its victim. 
“They're micro-predators, like a horsefly or something,” Towers said. 
All three of the orcas, a female and two younger males, had scars indicating they had spent time in cookie-cutter shark country. 
Word and photos of Vancouver’s mystery orcas reached marine biologist Emma Luck in Alaska. 
A year earlier, she had been alerted to a trio of mystery orcas in Turnagain Arm, about 5 miles from Anchorage. 
Orcas are fairly common in Alaska but rare near Anchorage. 
“Apparently, the whole of Anchorage had received the same news, because cars were packed into every available inch of highway pullouts and shoulders,” Luck said on Facebook. 
“People climbed on top of their vehicles, trying to catch sight of the three black dorsal fins cutting through the water.” 
The Anchorage trio had never been documented before or since. 
When Luck saw photos of the Vancouver trio, something clicked. 
“To my astonishment, I recognized them immediately: they were our Anchorage whales,” Luck said. 
“They have been spending time in the tropics, occasionally, and obviously, they've been seen up in Alaska, so they're moving around a lot,” Towers said. 
The well-traveled trio apparently left Canada on Monday and swam to Seattle, even entering the heavily industrial Duwamish Waterway before continuing south to Tacoma and Olympia. 
“It was almost a year ago that these animals were seen up in the biggest city in Alaska, and the next time they were seen was the biggest city in British Columbia, of course, followed up by the biggest city in Washington State,” Sutton said. 
“So, these guys are on a little city slicker tour.” 
An underwater microphone at the Highline College aquarium in Des Moines captured their calls as they swam into south Puget Sound on Wednesday. 
It remains unclear which population of killer whales the mystery trio belong to. 
Bay Cetology has given them numbers: T419, T420, and T421, while California-based researchers with the Oceanic Research Alliance have given them competing monikers: OCX085, OCX086, and OCX087. 
“My best guess is that they are either poorly documented Gulf of Alaska Bigg’s killer whales or perhaps far-flung visitors from the Aleutian Islands or Bering Sea,” Luck said. 
The trio was spotted hunting seals at the Port of Olympia on Thursday. 
Why these ocean-roaming predators have been hunting in such urban waters instead of their usual haunts is anyone’s guess. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%John Ryan: 3.0%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 1.2%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.0%John Ryan: 3.8%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic19.0%This article: 13.0%John Ryan: 0.9%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic13.0%This article: 1.8%John Ryan: 0.7%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias1.8%This article: 12.6%John Ryan: 1.6%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias12.6%This article: 7.0%John Ryan: 9.7%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect7.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 2.3%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 1.9%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.5%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 3.0%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 3.1%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 7.7%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 1.3%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.4%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 2.3%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.6%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 1.0%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.7%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.4%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.1%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.6%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.3%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 26.9%John Ryan: 7.5%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority26.9%This article: 3.7%John Ryan: 1.4%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma3.7%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 1.4%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.1%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 2.8%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.3%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.4%John Ryan: 0.6%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon3.4%This article: 6.1%John Ryan: 8.1%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion6.1%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.8%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 1.5%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.1%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.3%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.9%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 2.7%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 1.7%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.1%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.1%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.7%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.9%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 1.9%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.7%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ryan: 0.3%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

783 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.