Croc hunter dead???

[ballzac]

People have said that he had it coming, and although this is true, he's the type of guy that one never expects to actually die. Like Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore in Apocalypse Now who "will get out of this without a scratch."

[Torsten]

caapi - we are not being cold. fact is the guy played with death in an often foolish way. that's like a professional skydiver who goes splat, or a mercenary who gets shot - it's sad, but it's not unexpected.

as for his credentials, I don't know a lot of facts, but it seems neither does anyone else here. Seems like people just admired him for being a celeb and for the stuff that made him a celeb, but it doesn't seem anyone knows much about what sort of real conservation work he has done.

I tried to do a bit of research on that, but sadly many Irwin related websites are down today. It seems a lot of money was simply put back into the business and thus declared as conservation money. It's good to see that the profits are being used in such a way, but it is a far cry from funding actual conservation. And when you have good friends like minister Mal Brough who hands you 2 milion dollar cheques to support the animal hospital, one wonder who is actually paying for his work.

Irwin might have bought up rainforest and other land, but what has he done to protect it for the future? Has he put it into a trust? Has he put conservation caveats on it? No. So all he has done is buy land that his family ca do whatever they want with. If anyone else does it then that's called 'investment'.

How can a true conservationist call John Howard the greatest leader in australia and the greatest leader in the world?!? Why would a true conservationist call David Bellamy (Mr Global-warming-does-not-exist... sorry-I-got-it-wrong) one of his best friends and associates? Why would a true conservationist go to the US President Bush lunch at The Lodge in Canberra?

Steve Irwin might have done his own brand of conservation work, but for some reason he has either chosen not to work with established groups that have good credentials, or maybe these groups have chosen not to work with him. Bottom line is that I see a lot of good PR, but bugger all actual facts and results.

So, while death is generally a sad event, I am unlikely to shed any tears for any of the people he so prominently supports and hangs out with. I guess that kinda rubs off on him.

creach & rev - I don't have a problem with hunting animals that are plentiful. I think the blanket ban on killing australian natives is not a good policy. However, I find the thought that large amounts of cash can buy you anything extremely distasteful. Money should not play a role in who gets to hunt something. I do understand that many countries do not have the luxury of such principles, which is why I fully agree with poor nations implementing high price bounty projects, but a wealthy nation like australia should not have to resort to something like this.

Did you know that the chinese have just set a quota for Panda bounties?!? Yes, the very same Panda which is endangered and which so many of us have supported conservations and breeding efforts for. I think such quotas undermine the strong spirit and resolve conservationists need to do their hard, dangerous and underpaid work. I know salties are not rare like pandas, but for many conservationists the mentality is the same.

I think similar amounts of money could be raised by selling bounty lotteries. That way everyone has a chance regardless of financial status, and there is still plenty of cash for the conservation projects. Then again, I think ina welathy country conservation is a national responsibility, not a user pays system.

[occidentalis]

However, I find the thought that large amounts of cash can buy you anything extremely distasteful. Money should not play a role in who gets to hunt something. I do understand that many countries do not have the luxury of such principles, which is why I fully agree with poor nations implementing high price bounty projects, but a wealthy nation like australia should not have to resort to something like this.

I can see your point. I don't like the idea of it either. Personally though, I view the act of killing an animal just for the fun of it as about as pathetic as human behaviour gets, and I sort of think... if someone is at such an infantile stage of development that they're willing to part with large sums of money in exchange for the right to shoot a big animal, the sooner that money is taken from them the better

[-bijanto-]

Since he has died, I prefer to mention only good things about him.

I don't know him very well but certainly he is more popular than John Howard in Indonesia.

when I watched the TV news and a piece of a movie showing Steve playing with his kids near the crocs, I kinda sat back on my chair and thought for awhile.

Being a dad of a young daughter myself, I kinda sad. It made me think that life is so fragile, unpredictable and full of irony. He seemed to be very well trained and prepared when it comes to crocodiles, but who would have thought it was a manta that killed him?

Edited September 5, 2006 by -bijanto-

[nabraxas]

 

 

My heart goes out to his family esp his young daughter.

ditto.

[foolsbreath]

I think steves is a sad passing, anyone with kids will agree for that reason alone, But he has also done a fair bit of animal preservation work, if not conservation and has at least made aware, if not properly educated australians and people around the woeld in what he loved even if he did make a quid on the side, shit I would!

[sobriquet]

I think everyone agrees that it is a very sad passing and especially so for his family. Like any other human he would have had his good and bad points. I don't think anyone wanted to be insensitive to this sad event.

I can only speak for myself in that yesterday it seemed so unreal that perhaps it came across as insensitive.

But we have to have a balance and sometimes stick to reality, and the Premier of Queensland in electioneering mode has offered a state funeral for Steve Irwin. I think that is actually a ludicrous idea. You have people like David Attenbourough who produce documentaries that inform, educate and thrill with sensitivity to the subjects they study.

To give a state funeral to a man who seemed as if he hadn't grown out of the stage of burning ants with a magnifying glass is ridiculous. He was a showman and exhibitionist. His antics with his son in the crocodile pen summed up the questionable judgement he had and infantile nature of Steve well. The dangerous animal loving equivalent of Michael Jackson.

In one of the special broadcasts, Steve defended his act of putting his baby son in the crocodile pen by saying that there was a difference between "real danger and perceived danger". He argued that everything he did was only 'perceived danger'.

Anyhow, may he rest in peace but the idea of a state funeral just seems over the top to me.

[devance]

Very shocking too me for a very likable, active and functional guy to meet a sudden end.

Looking at him get close to poisonous snake was a nerve wracking ordeal.

He was stuck in the heart from the news.

But from a eco viewpoint he did point out that mother nature isn't a teddy bear and very unfortunately demostrated it.

Not the best or worst of eco attention getting.

But I think that would have been the way he would have liked to have died, but probably after age 60.

[apothecary]

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s960998.htm

Andrew Denton: A lot of people see you as this... this larger than life Steve Irwin, in some ways a one-dimensional, almost cartoon character. But what they, perhaps, don't know is you've bought huge tracts of land in Australia, Vanuatu, Fiji, US. Why have you done that?

Steve Irwin: I'm a conservationist through and through, Andrew. That's, er...that's why I was put on this planet, um, for the benefit of wildlife and wilderness areas. That's what I'm into. That's what makes me pumped, mate. That's what myself and Terry and our families have been all about.

Andrew Denton: So what's this land for?

Steve Irwin: Um, it's like national parks, mate.

Steve Irwin: We... You know, easily the greatest threat to the wildlife globally is the destruction and annihilation of habitat. So I've gone, "Right, well, how do I fix that? Well, making a quid here. People are keen to give me money over there. I'll buy it. I'll buy habitat." And I reckon the only thing wrong... Now, how's this? The only thing wrong with, you know, wildlife in Australia is that I don't own it. I could... Imagine how many kangaroos and crocodiles I could have if I owned Australia? It's, um... My wife is an American so she's got this, er... She's, um...you know, she's a good capitalist. And, er, she's very clever with money. Me, I'm not that clever and I don't really give a rip, but, er, she is. And, um, so whenever we get a...a, um...enough cash and enough...and a...and a chunk of land that we're passionate about, bang, we buy it. And what we're trying to do is we're trying to set an example to the world that, um, every single person can make a difference. Particularly those in the, um, in the political arena, um, those that have zoological facilities, any, you know, multinationals, any millionaires. They can all make a difference by buying chunks of land. And, in addition to that, every single person - man, woman and child, no matter what walk of life you're in, whether you're a, um, a fisherman, a janitor, um, Steve Irwin, the Croc Hunter - you can make a difference in wildlife by simply not purchasing wildlife products. Because today, Andrew, the wildlife perpetrators, they're hard to spot, mate. But what it is, these wildlife perpetrators now kill animals and call it 'sustainable use'. That, "Oh, let's kill crocs, turn them into belts and that's sustainable," you know? That isn't sustainable. Since when has killing wildlife saved anything? So, I'm a wildlife warrior through and through. And buying land means: A. that we're going to be able to get animals back if, and or when they become highly endangered; and B. getting out into the world, taking you, the audience, with me, having an adventure, and making it exciting. Otherwise, you're stuck with the demographics that, say, David Attenborough's got which is a bit smaller than what I got. And changing people's opinions on wildlife. How's this? For the first time in history, mate, I've just been involved with an issue where people were worried about the welfare of a shark. How's that? For the first time in history. Yay!

[puffingfish]

RIP Steve.

I thought you were a larrikin but what a way to go.

All I can say is it was definately his time!

Did anyone see the article about the kid that got killed in a similar way in 1988?

http://people.monstersandcritics.com/artic..._caught_on_film

In March 1988, a 12-year-old boy in a dinghy travelling across Mourilyan Harbour, off Innisfail, was struck by a large stingray after it leapt out of the water.

He received a puncture "the size of a .22 bullet hole right through his left nipple" and died six days later, Dr Fenner said.

A post mortem examination revealed a puncture wound in the boy's heart's right ventricle, surrounded by tissue that had been breaking down since the injury occurred.

Dr Fenner said that was the only other confirmed Australian stingray fatality, but a man who dived into a seawater bath in Victoria in the 1930s died after suffering what was suspected as a chest injury from a ray's ibarb.

Steve's death actually reminds me of the 'Grizzly Man'. Not only were both Steve and Tim manic personalities who put themselves in dangerous situations with wild animals and got themselves killed. But both were portrayed as 'conservationists' by the media. Now I can't comment on Steve's conservation efforts but if you've watched the 'Grizzly Man' it's easy to see that Timothy Treadwell exhibited obvious delusional and grandiose behaviours bordering on pathalogical. I'm not saying Steve was necessarily as disturbed as Tim but you have to question the media's role in adding sensation and hype in order to make money.

Both men know there were risks involved yet you have to be a little crazy to enter the domain of animals that are by nature extremely territorial.

[ballzac]

Given the main focus of these forums in general, I don't think anyone will blame me for making this observation...

Isn't it weird that when someone famous dies while playing with wild animals, standing on the edge of a volcano, or jumping over a dozen exploding cars on a motorcycle, the media - among others - say, "At least he died doing something he loved." But when a famous person dies from a drug overdose, it is used to further demonise drug use in general. Hell, River Phoenix probably died doing something he loved too.

[wandjina]

What alot of mean hearted sentiment. So much for a period of grace.

I certainly hope when I die I'm at least given that, even in the face of the stupid and selfish things I have done.

Nobodys perfect, and whilst I agree with alot of the criticism he copped over the years from 'real' environmentalists and ecologists etc, in fact I used to bag him more than most...from all accounts (i.e. people that actually knew him) he was a decent and sincere person who poured his heart, and wallet, into what he believed....putting him in the same league as Bush and Bin laden is utterly absurd...and who cares if his persona was one of a 'dickhead'.

Get off your high horses. Who are you to criticise someone so harshly so soon after there death? No one here is a saint.

Maybe my beliefs are old-fashioned, but unless someone is an evil monster the world is undoubtedly better off without, I reckon they deserve a period of grace before we start sledging them. Show some respect.

[sobriquet]

Given the main focus of these forums in general, I don't think anyone will blame me for making this observation...

Isn't it weird that when someone famous dies while playing with wild animals, standing on the edge of a volcano, or jumping over a dozen exploding cars on a motorcycle, the media - among others - say, "At least he died doing something he loved." But when a famous person dies from a drug overdose, it is used to further demonise drug use in general. Hell, River Phoenix probably died doing something he loved too.

Good observation.

I think yesterday a 3 year old child was reported as dying after drowning in a swimming pool with an apparently locked gate/fence. It happens all around the country... and yet no one wants to ban swimming pools in backyards.

[wandjina]

Isn't it weird that when someone famous dies while playing with wild animals, standing on the edge of a volcano, or jumping over a dozen exploding cars on a motorcycle, the media - among others - say, "At least he died doing something he loved." But when a famous person dies from a drug overdose, it is used to further demonise drug use in general. Hell, River Phoenix probably died doing something he loved too.

yep...by the mainstream media.

Also funny how when someone 'mainstream' dies, the 'fringe' does the same thing, pulling them to pieces, almost celebrating the death as orthodoxy soemtimes does with drug overdoses. So and so deserved it, had it coming, so who they were, their memory, is therefore not worthy of respect?

My partner died 9 years ago from a heroin overdose, and I was absolutley gobsmacked by how cruel some people were, and the things they said about him broke my and his familys heart.

So Irwin was a dickhead from our 'switched on' , non-conformist perspective....lets rip him to shreds.

Pot calling the kettle black

[Frank Costanza's Lawyer]

Steve Irwin was a dickhead, but there's nothing really wrong with that is there? At least he was an entertaining dickhead. And maybe he isn't as informative as Sir David Attenborough, but how many bogans sitting on their dilapidated couches drinking cans of Fosters watch Attenborough? Not many. Steve Irwin brought conservationism to the Australian idiot, in a sense. Thats got to be better than nothing. Also, maybe he sucked up to John Howard so he could influence some of Johnny's decisions in his now nonexistent future. I know if I met John Howard I would be nice to him in the hope that I could inform him of how stupid some of the things he says are (ie "Jihad is not present in any other culture", 1. Islam is a relegion not a culture, 2. What were the Crusades?).

Cheers

FCL

Edited September 5, 2006 by Frank Costanza's Lawyer

[Pelinster]

unless someone is an evil monster the world is undoubtedly better off without, I reckon they deserve a period of grace before we start sledging them. Show some respect.

I didn't want to get involved but I just have to mention that I totally agree with what you said Wandjina.

Not meaning to point the finger here at anyone, more just speaking in general, but I have heard a lot of people I know crack jokes about Steve's death and I think it is quite amazing. However, I guess it is nothing strange for people to turn on someone for being different (aka a dickhead).

I don't know of Steve enough to really comment on his personal character or the life he lead, but I do know that he isn't around any more to be pulled up on it.

Edited September 5, 2006 by Pelinster

[Torsten]

If poeple want to live in the public eye then they need to be able to deal with the fact that people will also discuss them publically. I don't think death makes any difference. I mean, Steve certainly isn't going to be affected by what is said here and I am sure his family have better things to do than to listen to us. So, what's the difference between discussing it now and discussing it later.

I don't think we should make jokes about someone or bag them out. But I think that's the case in both life and death. I am not saying anything here that I wouldn't say to him or his family in person. I am not criticising him for being a larrikin, and I don't have aproblem with him being wealthy. The things that I am concerned about are that

1) he disguised his personal investments and trust as conservation

2) he did 'cash for comments' for the Howard government.

3) he very vocally supported a government that has done more damage to conservation than any other australian government before it

4) he died while on the job to make more money

I would not even have mentioned any of these things if it weren't for other members here making claims about his extreme benevolence which do not appear to be based in fact, but rather in a well oiled PR machine.

for example:

re 1) as I mentioned before, unless land is locked in under caveats or national parks, the owner can do what he wants with it. So the tracts of land he has bought are not actually conservation areas until their future is secured. There is nothign stopping his wife or their kids to one day sell the land or to develop it. It has happened before with other charity celebs.

re 2 & 3) When you are as Popular as Steve was your endorsement of politicians and political policy is a responsibility you have to burden. By him endorsing Howard he MUST be held accountable. I mean, what good is it to claim we need to stop global warming for the sake of conservation (and I am not saying he did so), but to then endorse a government that doesn't do anythign about it? Or to claim we need national parks for animals, but to then support a government that allows 4WD recreation in national parks? His whole conservation stance is meaningless if it is not backed up by appropriate actions.

re 4) Steve did not die protecting primates from poachers. he did not die protecting the amazon from oil mercenaries. he did not die in a burmese jail. Steve died on the job, while making money in the process of prodding animals. I don't mind him making loads of money - good on him, especially if he uses it for good - but I don't understand how someone who is so passionate about nature would charge AQIS 150K for making a few ads that are designed to protect australian nature. That's the sort of instances where you can tell moneygrabbers from believers.

And yes, I do appreciate that he brought the wonders of nature to the working class, but whether you can call his approach conservation or not is a different matter.

[mycomorphosis]

What alot of mean hearted sentiment. So much for a period of grace.

I certainly hope when I die I'm at least given that, even in the face of the stupid and selfish things I have done.

Nobodys perfect, and whilst I agree with alot of the criticism he copped over the years from 'real' environmentalists and ecologists etc, in fact I used to bag him more than most...from all accounts (i.e. people that actually knew him) he was a decent and sincere person who poured his heart, and wallet, into what he believed....putting him in the same league as Bush and Bin laden is utterly absurd...and who cares if his persona was one of a 'dickhead'.

Get off your high horses. Who are you to criticise someone so harshly so soon after there death? No one here is a saint.

Maybe my beliefs are old-fashioned, but unless someone is an evil monster the world is undoubtedly better off without, I reckon they deserve a period of grace before we start sledging them. Show some respect.

Well said Wandjina, my sentiments on the issue are quite similar. Furthermore, I don't get all the talk that suggests he was somehow not a "real" conservationist. I would think that anybody who makes an effort to conserve and protect the environment and wildlife is worthy of some credit and respect, whether they follow the usual established protocol or not. What's the difference between a "true conservationist" and a passionate and active individual anyway, other than perhaps a variance in politics and technicalities? I feel that the more important factor to consider here should be the intention behind the action, and I don't think anyone could argue that Steve Irwin's will was good.

As Frank Costanza's Laywer suggested (heh heh), Steve Irwin took the subject of conservation and made it attainable and appealing to the average Joe, and probably more importantly, to children all around the world. If nothing else, his sensationalisation has certainly raised awareness on many important environmental issues, and that in itself should be worthy of some praise from the "real conservationists" of the world. He may not have been rubbing noses with all the right politicians or taking care of the right paperwork, but setting up zoos and buying habitat to save it from development and telling the world about the environment surely must count for something.

Edited September 5, 2006 by mycomorphosis

[sobriquet]

I honestly think that if many people don't discuss this now then there's not going to be much heard about it even a week from now. The opportunistic media is getting their mileage out of special tribute programs and what not. Surely there is room in a free country for the opposite view to be expressed also?

As Torsten has pointed out, Steve Irwin died on the job; he had a "hands on approach" and I can't begin to remember how many times I had cringed while accidentally flipping to a program he had made where he yet again taunts an animal. One particularly gross one was when he taunted spiders and snakes rather than educate people about them.

He was an entrepreneur and there's nothing wrong with that; but to somehow portray this as conservationism is total rubbish. If he was conserving anything, it was so that he could profit from it. Conserving the golden goose because it makes you money is different from conserving it because of its right to exist.

His alias says it all really; he chose the name "Crocodile Hunter" - yes, hunter. Well the hunter became the hunted.

Once again I send utmost condolences to his children who will miss him and live fatherless for the rest of their lives because of their dad's risk taking behaviour. If you play Russian roulette, and you think everything is just "perceived" danger then one day it's going to bite back.

So while I sympathise for the kids and family, I have no sympathy at all for Steve Irwin's own personal stupidity that took him to his own death in a sense.

Hopefully people will learn not to mess with animals that they don't understand, though they think they do.

[Maturin]

I think anyone's life should be viewed by weighing the positives against the negatives. I think Steve Irwin comes out far in favour of the positive. Of course there were negatives. I agree with Wandjina, none of us are saints.

Fact is even if you weren't personally a fan, myself included, as a celeb he brought a joy and an appreciation of wonder reagrds the Australian environment to a lot of people. I'm personally thinking of my 6 year old nephew who loves watching his shows, and knows quite a bit about animals from doing this (for a little tacker).

I have no idea about his conservation methods, but I'm betting he did far more than the average person.

There's tons of footage from divers swimming with rays. Damn unlucky way to go.

RIP, Steve.

[devance]

Torst right in that land holdings mean nothing.

For even a marginal ecological structure to sustain animal life a ribbon or perferably 10 mile wide stripe of continious park for the length of a country and perferably continentally is the only way to go.

In the U.S. the savage alteration of the environment for gain is already getting attention.

Past mistakes are being already paid for by the present [New Orleans] and the future.

So everyone in the U.S.will be ecologists because of the massive problems caused by shorterm economic gain.[revenge of the ecologist]

The usual style of the U.S. is that if you aren't earning money[Taxes] just go away and die an any manner you can.

The solution they think, import Mexicans as a cheap work force.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, the Mexicans are illiterate and will take a generation to produce the quality workforce that works as cheaply needed for whatever economic scheme the Republicans could hope for.

[devance]

Got off topic.

There are places were tourest feed the stingrays.

Get mobbed by the rays as the rays are used to being feed over years.

Apparently not a bad thing .

I wouldn't though as my wondering if the 15 or so stingrays have stings is answered.

I also afraid of any sort of primate, especially Chimps.

Golden marmasets are also barely tolerable.

[hairyplant]

4) he died while on the job to make more money

No! imo he died on the job spreading his message of how great nature is. I agree that a lot of what is written above is mean hearted and wrong! This was a man who loved the environment, and strongly believed in protecting it. I can't believe that people can be cynical of that. I think that it is digusting to read these things on what I thought was a nature loving web site.

What the world needs is "in your face" environmentalism, because the "average joe" will not pay attention to anything unless it is so. Steve Irwin didn't give a shit about money, he only gave a shit about animals and their habitat. He called himself the crocodile hunter because that is what he did, but ffs, he began saving crocs from farmers who would have otherwise shot them!

You cynics are dis'ing one of the only people with serious fame that shared probably similar views to yours on conservation. He needed to be so "out there" because it was the only way he new he could get his message across.

That Denton interview summed it up for me, and brought me to tears at times, because he showed how down to earth and in love with nature he really was. He saw the worlds fear and suppression of nature is a horrible thing, and actually worked to do something to change it.

Imo he was an environmentalist and conservationalist in the purest form, but unfortunately for some of you, that became hidden behind the fact that he became very famous. He only provoked animals for the camera only so that other people could see them as the same beautiful and amazing creatures he did.

I dont claim that he was a genious, but we did lose a great figure and personality yesterday.

[Pelinster]

If you play Russian roulette, and you think everything is just "perceived" danger then one day it's going to bite back.

So while I sympathise for the kids and family, I have no sympathy at all for Steve Irwin's own personal stupidity that took him to his own death in a sense.

Hopefully people will learn not to mess with animals that they don't understand, though they think they do.

Sympathy for Steve Irwin's stupidity? I wonder how you would define Steve Irwin's 'stupidity'.

Perhaps he was 'stupid' because he swam with a sting ray? Perhaps I would be stupid to venture out in a storm. If I were to get struck by lightning, would it have been stupid of me to not assess the risk of such an event occurring and avoid entering into the situation?

You could label any person who takes any level of risk as being stupid. Besides, when the word stupid is used to describe a person, to me it sounds more like 'I am ignorant'. 'I am ignorant of the circumstances surrounding a person's actions so I simplify it and reduce it down to "stupidity".'

(Not a big fan of the word 'stupid' )

However, I don't see how the fact Steve Irwin was known for taking risks reduces in any way the tragedy of his death.

Edited September 5, 2006 by Pelinster

[botanika]

bring back Harry Butler...