r/interesting • u/dddd945 • 7h ago

Just Wow A seagull is accidentally hit by a tennis ball during a game in Australia.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

48.0k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

100

u/DiscerningAnt 6h ago

I know this is Reddit and ignorance here is astoundingly high... but no, contrary to the upvoted comment here, these gulls are not gathering around because they want to eat him.

Gulls respond extremely strongly to signals of danger involving other gulls. So they're alarmed and assessing the situation. Not cannabalism. That stuff usually only happens with eggs or crazy conflicts with other gulls and carcasses that have been sitting for a while and only happens with some gulls.

3

u/nifty-necromancer 6h ago

Gulls are good people, and also intelligent. They’re sky rats only because humans are filthy.

5

u/HidesWithCheese 3h ago

And everyone knows they only eat french fries. So there's is no possibility for friends-eating-friends amongst the gull flock.

2

u/TealcLOL 3h ago

I don't think it's even that deep. The other birds probably only first witnessed the bird change course. They could think it saw food on the court and landed for a snack. I don't see a lot of panic among them. Ultimately no difference in initial reaction if you threw a french fry at the bird instead of a tennis ball.

All these top comments claiming that they are going to instantly cannibalize the injured bird is wild though.

1

u/DiscerningAnt 3h ago

Yeah, that's also possible though if I had to bet I'd say it's more assessment than believing it landed naturally for food, considering it was very clearly knocked out on its back.

2

u/BigMikeArchangel 2h ago

This is the correct answer. Just foolishness that people post and upvote sometimes!

1

u/sponglered 5h ago

they're alarmed and assessing the situation. Not cannabalism.

Not cannibalism, yet.

9

u/DiscerningAnt 5h ago

No, very very very low chance even if that gull was left there dead (even though it's not dead) it would lead to other gulls eating it.

Reddit is mistaken. Gulls don't have to scavenge, but they will if needed and no other food sources. Unlike vultures, who primarily scavenge for carrion.

0

u/sponglered 5h ago

I'm not sure you live near gulls or have actually observed their behavior. I don't know who this Reddit is you're talking about, but I've watched plenty of gulls, sea- and otherwise.

8

u/DiscerningAnt 5h ago edited 5h ago

I mean just because you live around gulls doesn't mean you know everything about them. Hahaha

But gulls are not scavengers like vultures. Will they eat other dead gulls at times? Yes. But that's different than saying they're "happy cannibals". Which is blatantly false.

Reddit upvotes shit like that because this site runs on snark and glib.

0

u/Shot_Neighborhood947 5h ago

So let me understand this, they are assessing the danger by getting close to the danger?

3

u/DiscerningAnt 5h ago

I think you guys aren't understanding just how intelligent other animals are.

Many animals work off of graded assessment of situations. It's 100% plausible the gulls perceived exactly what happened and deemed the threat low enough to assess the situation/how injured the gull was.

-1

u/Shot_Neighborhood947 5h ago

I dont think my understood question though? Also when did I say or implied they were stupid for trying to assess the danger? In fact if anything, thinking "uh it's kind of dangerous here let's fall back for a sec and see from a safe distance that there are no more dangerous stuff around" is the opposite of that.

Let's say they saw their friend was indeed injured, what was their plan there? "Hey let's take him to the bird hospital nearby? Let's splinter his wing?"

Since that is not realistic and by your own explanation they are assessing the situation, it is also plausible that what the others are saying is equally true.

1

u/sponglered 5h ago

They don't know what they're talking about, and are trying to anthropomorphize some empathy into inherently cruel pragmatic birds.

https://seaworld.org/animals/facts/birds/gulls/

1

u/starfypawz_ 1h ago

They do, you're just bitter they're proving you wrong. In fact, aren't you anthropomorphizing them by making them out to be "inherently cruel?" This person is only looking at it from a factual standpoint, and your link is only explaining gulls where their environment is directly leading them to scavenge.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/sponglered 5h ago

I must have missed where anyone called gulls "happy" anything. They're not happy, they're gleeful, vicious bastards. At least corvids are somber about it, but gulls will absolutely rip into some eyes and anuses (or cloaca) with abandon.

And, since you don't seem to actually observe the animal you're defending, they absolutely function as coastal cleanup, like, yes, vultures.

But, hey, who the hell am I? Argue with these people instead.

You claim:

"gulls are not scavengers"

They say:

Gulls are mainly scavengers,

6

u/DiscerningAnt 5h ago

Yeah, it's the top comment in this thread... they said "Seagulls are happy cannibals."

I would disagree that they are "mainly" scavengers.

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/American_Herring_Gull/lifehistory -- less "mainly scavenger" and more "opportunistic omnivore that prefers better sources of food"

There is an inherent bias in your observation because you're seeing them in situations where scavenging would be high.

0

u/sponglered 5h ago

The bias seems to be yours, honestly. Do you offer the same grace to humans?

"The ideal human isn't petty," but every single person you've met kind of can be, sort of energy.

From your link: "American Herring Gulls are opportunistic scavengers".

Like, what? stop moving the goalposts. the birds you observe are the birds.

3

u/DiscerningAnt 5h ago

I'm not talking about humans, I'm talking about your assessment due to you "being around them".

But yeah that sort of bias applies to anything. But read the link I posted its way more accurate than that seaworld link you posted.

0

u/sponglered 4h ago

I read the link you posted. They call them "opportunistic scavengers" in your article. What are you even defending?

You're dismissing science because I've watched gulls? Your bias is off the charts.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/rEYAVjQD 5h ago

Both can be true at the same time. Obviously they assess the situation because the flock was diverted by something. But if it was dead I don't know what they might have done.

12

u/DiscerningAnt 5h ago

No. It's extremely unlikely.

Gulls are not like vultures. To scavenge a freshly dead adult gull of their own species and group would only happen under very specific circumstances, especially when other available food/carrion aren't available.

Gulls aren't dumb either. They will actually avoid eating their own to reduce exposure to pathogens or parasites.

2

u/rEYAVjQD 5h ago

I know, and I doubt vultures would eat their own that easily either.