Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin killed

[SVXH6]

he did not harm crocs,nor any other animals he interacted with.. if you read any info on what happended he was not bothering the stingray this is in the video proof that they have.. the stingray just lashed out.. and to the "crocodile hunter" comment: how many crocs did you see him harm?? and how many did you see him re-locate to areas for a better habitat for less chances of danger and harm.. he put himself in danger so others wouldnt be.. this all from what i saw on the show, and what i got from it.. i didnt ever see him harm any animal, could he have?? maybe but i didnt see it, and if you watched the same shows neither did you.. so yes he is a "naturalist".. the name "crocodile hunter" doesnt mean he harmed them..

and i quote from yahoo news:
Police said it appeared Irwin was just watching the ray.

"There is no evidence that Mr Irwin was intimidating or threatening the stingray," Queensland police spokesman Mike Keating told reporters

.. he educated many in showing how dangerous and aggressive these animals are(crocs, snakes) i thought nothing he ever did with animals was wrong, only good and educating.. this is all IMO..

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

a FWIW just in case someone didn't know:
Sharks prey upon rays. Rays developed those barbs as a defense mechanism against sharks. The ray was acting naturally to defend itself. It wasn't any poison that killed Steve- it was the physical trauma caused by the barb's entry and (mostly) removal... similar to the damage a hunting arrow does. The fish hit the bullseye. I think Steve Irwin was great at what he did. This guy followed in the steps of Marlin Perkins and Jack Hanna. There will be others, but Steve leaves a big void.
I think Steve was at least a little out of his element in the water. I don't think it ever entered his mind that the ray was able to kill him with a well placed jab of it's barb.
It's almost guaranteed that information published on rays from now on will include mention of Steve Irwin's death and the potentially lethal barb.
You had to wonder if any critter might eventually kill Steve, but none of us (including Steve) would have guessed a stingray would be the cause his death. It was a very unfortunate freak occurrence.

 

[alozano]

I have seen him handling crocodiles, I have seen him handling a black mamba snake, and approaching many other poisonous animals. This is simply intruding in their habitat, and promotes the intrusion of others in the habitats of endangered or dangerous animals.

If he was close enough to be stung by the stingray, then yes, he was intruding in their environment. The stingray is a predator and poisonous, therefore dangerous to approach. Anyone who approaches a poisonous predator is (a) irresponsible and (b) is intruding in a natural habitat. So I would not call this person a "naturalist". Even if his documentaries were educational for some, many others would get the wrong ideas about playing with dangerous animals.

And yes, I have read the news. This is from the BBC website:

Cameraman Ben Cropp, who was also on the reef when Mr Irwin was killed on Monday, spoke to a member of the production crew who had seen the footage of the incident.

"He was up in the shallow water, probably 1.5m to 2m deep, following a bull ray which was about a metre across the body - probably weighing about 100kg, and it had quite a large spine," Mr Cropp told The Australian newspaper.

"It stopped and went into a defensive mode and swung its tail with the spike. It probably felt threatened because Steve was alongside and there was the cameraman ahead, and it felt there was danger and it baulked."

So, it turns out that the cameraman who was shooting seems to think that the stingray felt threatened by his presence. Wouldn't you say that this is intrusion of a natural habitat and stressing a predator without necessity?

Alvaro

 

[Sk8r]

Y'know what strikes me as ironic here? We're not exactly the people [as a hobby] who never meddle with fish, inverts, cephalopods, sharks, and the natural environment. There seems just a little logical disconnect.

 

[drbronx]

I believe everyone here is making valid points. Strictly defined, Steve is not a natuaralist since in the process of naturalistic observation, there is no attempt to directly interact with the animals being studied since that would cause the animal to deviate from their natural modes of behavior. However, I don't believe he promoted himself as a naturalist but more as a conservationist. Thus, his efforts were primarily designed to raise public awareness about animals and their habitats. I believe he was also attempting to desensitize the publics fears about various animals which in turn raises a sense of empathy regarding their plight. Towards this end he filmed "intimate" interactions with "dangerous" animals which is a very effective means of accomplishing this. Sure, there is some showmanship involved in this but I believe it was for a very deliberate effect; that of promoting education and awareness in the worlds public in order to instigate private and governmental conservation efforts. I feel he understood the risks involved in these endeavors and that he was willing to give his life for a greater good. I'm sure all who personally knew him and loved him know that despite the pain of loss that they no doubt feel, even his death is an expression of how he lived, fully and with passion towards the natural world. Not a terrible legacy that willl undoubtedly carry momentum on in his memory.

 

[crp]

Can you imagine how much better off the world would be if more of us showed the same enthusiasm and passion in our chosen vocations?

 

[YeahitsK]

Hey Alvaro,

Steve never advocated individuals interacting with nature in the way he did. When he would pick up the black mamba, what did he say- "I'm a trained professional, never do this." His purpose wasn't to get people to interact with nature in the way he did. I'll concede he violated the personal space of the creatures he interacted with. The point is, the animal lived to see another day, along with the countless other snakes, reptiles, fish, and spiders he got people to appreciate. He's inspired a generation of people that love these animals and who will not kill them upon sight simply for being the animals they are. That was his cause, not promotion of foolish interaction with dangerous creatures. You greatly misunderstand the man and what he was trying to promote. I challenge you to back up what you are saying and post one instance where someone was injured/killed because they picked up a dangerous snake, or messed with any other dangerous animal, because they were trying to be like Steve (and not because they were drunk or religious).

 

[Capt_Cully]

Alozano,

I don't know if you get off on playing devil's advocate or what, but I feel "in MY opinion" that the timing of your comments are greatly distasteful and unsympathetic.

Someone with that much enthusiasm towards preserving the natural world and the creatures in it, and backs it up by purchasing vast reserves of land to protect it should be reveered.

Not to mention he was a good soul.

Again, my deepest sympathies to his friends and family.

The brightest stars burn out the fastest.

 

[FateX8]

i just wanted to say one thing
stingrays have a venom but its not potent enough to kill a person
when someone says poisonous they immediately think deadly
hundreds of people are stung by stingrays annually yet only a few people have ever died EVER

 

[alozano]

YeahitsK,

I didn't say that he directly advocated or promoted interacting with nature in that way, and yes, he always said "I'm a trained professional". The problem is that, in my opinion, nobody should be interacting in that way with wildlife, whether you are trained or not (and I am not even sure what it means to be "a trained professional" when you are handling a mamba). And by showing on tv how he is able to handle dangerous animals, he may be indirectly promoting the interaction with wildlife.

I understand that his show may have reached a large audience, and maybe educated a good number of viewers, but I do not agree with the approach he took to educate viewers. Regardless of the impact of the show, I do not think that it is appropriate to disturb wildlife and tape it, that's all.

A

 

[Arik]

Steve's handling of wildlife may have annoyed the animal in hand, but he probably saved thousands of animals in doing so. He showed people that the enivronment and it's inhabitants are to be RESPECTED, but not FEARED..... In handling crocs, snakes, etc. he showed that they aren't mindless killers, manhunters, demons, etc and made countless people more respectful and more concerned about wildlife.

This loss is tragic for his family, but the world lost a real hero who unselfishly toiled to conserve the enivronment. Cheers Steve, you won't soon be forgotten....

 

[Arik]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8089546#post8089546 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by alozano
The problem is that, in my opinion, nobody should be interacting in that way with wildlife, whether you are trained or not (and I am not even sure what it means to be "a trained professional" when you are handling a mamba). And by showing on tv how he is able to handle dangerous animals, he may be indirectly promoting the interaction with wildlife.

I understand that his show may have reached a large audience, and maybe educated a good number of viewers, but I do not agree with the approach he took to educate viewers. Regardless of the impact of the show, I do not think that it is appropriate to disturb wildlife and tape it, that's all.

A

Ummmmm.....what??? I assume you have a fishtank, since you are on the forum. What do you think we as aquarists do to wildlife? This isn't Finding Nemo ---- fisherman trap wild fish, kill corals doing so, overfish reefs to support the hobby --- and you think Steve Irwin "disturbed" wildlife and taped it for kicks? Maybe you think that it is okay to disturb wildlife to put in tanks for our personal viewing pleasure, but not okay to disturb wildlife to tape so that you can educate MILLIONS of people worldwide....

I'm sorry, but I think you need to take a serious look at what you are saying.

 

[alozano]

Arik,

I am not setting myself as an example of rightness.

However, the rock in my aquarium was aquacultured, the two fish I own were born in Ithaca, NY, and the corals I own come from frags of (i) not endangered species and (ii) all come from other URS members, who have grown the corals themselves. So, no, I do not disturb *wild* life by having an aquarium.

Perhaps by having an aquarium in display, and buying aquarium products, I am indirectly promoting the distruction of coral reefs (which is something that indeed worries me). Maybe that is the case, and undoubtedly we should all think if this is the case or not. Maybe we are all being hypocritical here, we love reefs and yet we own an aquarium, and that's another discussion that we should have.

Alvaro

 

[YeahitsK]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8089546#post8089546 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by alozano
And by showing on tv how he is able to handle dangerous animals, he may be indirectly promoting the interaction with wildlife.

Have you found any instances of that being true yet? Remember, drunks or people using venemous snakes to practice religion don't count.
What he's directly promoting is love and respect of the wildlife and its habitat. What is acceptable to show on TV and still excites and interests a broad spectrum of people in protecting wildlife then if this is not acceptable to you?

 

[alozano]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8089869#post8089869 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by YeahitsK
Have you found any instances of that being true yet? Remember, drunks or people using venemous snakes to practice religion don't count.
What he's directly promoting is love and respect of the wildlife and its habitat. What is acceptable to show on TV and still excites and interests a broad spectrum of people in protecting wildlife then if this is not acceptable to you?

I am not going to spend hours looking through news sources trying to find evidence. You perfectly know that people imitate people on TV, regardless of how many times the tv show says "don't do this". But, since you asked, please read this (the first post, by Capt. Anthony B. Wilson IDNR Law Enforcement Division Special Investigation Section Commander) or specially this, where we see Steve feeding crocodiles and holding his own baby with the other hand. I am not sure how putting at risk the life of a baby would educate people about crocodiles.

The end does not justify the means.

Alvaro

 

[dreaminmel]

The line has to be drawn somewhere. Shall we completely do away with television and not take our children out in public as they "may" imitate something they see? No, rationally we educate them on why they should not imitate bad behaviors. Likewise Steve educated us on the dangers involved with certain animals. I get real edgey w/ this whole "if it's on TV they'll imitate it" mentality. Since when is it OK for responsible adults to push the blame of children's actions on to someone else?

I have a serious problem with an opinion on this thread but due to the right of others to have opinions will digress. I will just end by saying that the loss of a life is never justified. My six year old nephew loved Steve's shows and you know what? He never picks up any snakes because Steve taught him they could be dangerous. Mission accomplished Steve. God bless.

 

[YeahitsK]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8090071#post8090071 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by alozano
I am not going to spend hours looking through news sources trying to find evidence. You perfectly know that people imitate people on TV, regardless of how many times the tv show says "don't do this". But, since you asked, please read this (the first post, by Capt. Anthony B. Wilson IDNR Law Enforcement Division Special Investigation Section Commander) or specially this, where we see Steve feeding crocodiles and holding his own baby with the other hand. I am not sure how putting at risk the life of a baby would educate people about crocodiles.

The end does not justify the means.

Alvaro

First of all, with the popularity of this show I would have thought you could find a more reputable source for an incident than something mentioned by a person in an internet forum. For all we know that guy was drunk when he picked up the snake. I agree though that time is valuable and you shouldn't have to comb the internet to prove your point. I would have thought that your point would be easy to verify if true since such an incident would be high profile.
And you are right about the baby thing. I'm sure we have to worry about people feeding their crocodiles with their babies in their hands. If you lived at a zoo with these animals and had children, at what age would you teach them about the dangers of crocodiles? Wait until they are 2.5 and crawl into the cage with them?
I know people, especially children, imitate what they see on TV. However, people possess common sense. People with it know enough that this is probably a case of something they don't want to imitate. Children, on the other hand, should be taught by their parents not to pick up snakes. If they are old enough to be influenced by a show on TV, they are old enough to be influenced by their parents. As a responsible parent, you should know your kid is watching this sort of thing, and tell them "you shouldn't pick up a snake if you see it." That is where I would place the blame, not on the person on TV. You know, for the same reason you would teach them guns are dangerous. Way more people (people popular on TV) handle guns safely than venomous snakes on TV. Many more children that see guns on TV live in a house where guns are present than this whole reptile analogy. If an accident then occurs with a gun, is it the fault of television?