Croc hunter dead???

[muchomundos]

reading through this thread (as disturbing as its been) has affirmed my beliefs that no matter how "spiritually enlightened" or culturally and ethically sophisticated ( or just simply evolved) people percieve themselves to be ..........any chance to flex their intellectual muscle to somehow make them appear in a better or more attractive light to others is just so irresistable.

human nature- just makes me wanna escape from this seemingly enternal cycle. thats why i got interested in ethnobotany!!

peace power and strength to all (even in death)

muchos gracias y adios amigo

the planet mourns with your family

[ballzac]

I think I'd better clarify something I said earlier. I said that I agree that he had it coming. What I meant was that he was bound to die at a young age from an animal attack because of his chosen lifestyle, not that he deserved it. As for the debate that is going on here, I am well and truly on the fence on this one, because I don't know enough about Steve Irwin or conservation. The only opinion I have on this subject is that it makes no difference whether someone is dead or not as to what can be said about them. If Steve Irwin was a top bloke then he was as deserving of that title when he was alive as he is now. If he was a wanker, then people should be just as free to point it out now as they were when he was alive.

[PD.]

bring back Harry Butler...

I used to love Harrys program as a kid, and so did ONE other kid in my class. I guess that the number of kids that loved Steve Irwin today compared to Harry then would be massive, that in itself is an achievement in my books. I was sometimes ridiculed for my knowledge and interest in all sorts of living creatures but now kids think its cool to protect animals.

Conservation has come a long way and it needs a public face no matter how cheesy or wrong people think that face is or how bad their ideas are. It brings it into the mainstream and therefore it is noticed and then the problems can be adressed. As for what he did with the money he earnt, who really gives a fuck how much he earned doing what and what he did with it. Arguing about whether the land he bought was a proper conservation reserve or whether it will support animal life is just fucking stupid. He purchased pristine land to protect it, isnt that enough for you? Or to be good enough must one have every document and paper with all the fucking signatures to prove that they are King conservation. He obviously did things his way and by crikey he got things done, so who knows what the crazy fu**er was gonna do with that land.

He has brought animals into the homes of people that may have been watching shite like Big Brother and educated them to the fact that out past that shopping centre there are things called animals that are amazing.

[apothecary]

Torsten, you mean this trust?.

It used to be called the Steve Irwin Foundation until a year ago or something.

You gotta be joking calling it a PR move, just from the front page I see links like "African Conservation", "Asian Conservation", "Concious Consumerism".

The ads in the sidebar also speak volumes.

As for a grace period or whatever, I don't agree, people should be able to voice their opinion whatever it may be (as long as it isn't harming someone else).

[-bijanto-]

if Steve's daughter ever read this thread someday, I hope she read it when she had grown up to be wise enough to understand. Think about this way: Something bad written about him here could make her feel down, because she cannot ask his Dad anymore for an explanation.

[in_spirit]

Steve Irwin was just what he said. He has done more for Australia than any Politician than anyone here. Yes he bought land parcel and YES he did set up conservations parks not just here but all around the world.He wasn'r all about publicity and did not really like it but he had a cause that he beleived in. For anyone to berate someone who took the role of Australian Ambassador without being paid for it and actually self funding it is treachorous, My hat is off to him. Steve Irwin was / is the best ambassador Australia has had! This is a tragic loss for Australia even the fools who in their green eyed hatred for successful peoplel like Steve [ie Tall Poppy] cut him down with words that, they can not back, and he can no longer defend himself against. SHAME ON YOU ALL who can not see that he has done real good!! Who of you can fill his void??

Edited September 5, 2006 by evil

[incognito]

A fathers day tribute to Steve Irwin in the sept issue of 'marie claire' magazine, by Bindi Irwin, Steves daughter,

"I love that he's funny, he's entertaining and he's always there when i need him most, Im proud to have a dad like that, who takes on conservation issues around the world. I love him very, very much."

I think that kind of TRUE love and admiration roars in the face of the most belligerent of cynical wank.more negative energy-just what the world needs! , maybee these negative cynical people should take stock of some of Steves boundless pro-active, positive enthusiasm and love, and shine some light out into the world as steve has. Just ask ANY kid out there. My 5 yr old nephew cried for hours upon hearing of steves death, and through watching steves shows has developed an active interest in the worlds animals and the preservation there-of, and im sure will take that interest throughout his life, and hopefully pass that on to his children and so on.

I do believe Steve has made a BIG difference and will continue to do so.

It is these people that the world remembers and rightly so,, what a grim world indeed we live in, when a joke is passed upon a good mans death, but of what consequence? will these people be remembered? the dark and cynical?? maybee, but only with contempt , and for a very brief while.

I heard a presenter on t.v this morning describe the effect of steves death to the effect that I, and am sure a great many other people around the world have felt 'that steves death feels like a large forest has just been felled'

[RubyTuesday]

Sorry guys, I must be one cold-hearted bitch cos I just couldn't stop laughing

I don't really care what he has or hasn't done, he was just plain embarrassing, and if he gets a State Funeral I'm gonna go and throw a rubber stingray at his coffin.

[shaman]

"Sorry guys, I must be one cold-hearted bitch cos I just couldn't stop laughing

I don't really care what he has or hasn't done, he was just plain embarrassing, and if he gets a State Funeral I'm gonna go and throw a rubber stingray at his coffin."

shut your xxxx xxxx...hes sick (the good kind)

[spice]

Sorry guys, I must be one cold-hearted bitch cos I just couldn't stop laughing

I don't really care what he has or hasn't done, he was just plain embarrassing, and if he gets a State Funeral I'm gonna go and throw a rubber stingray at his coffin.

edit: My bad, sorry mods. Anywho that is definatly not a healthy attitude, a life is a life.

Edited September 5, 2006 by mumbles

[Pelinster]

Sorry guys, I must be one cold-hearted bitch cos I just couldn't stop laughing

I don't really care what he has or hasn't done, he was just plain embarrassing, and if he gets a State Funeral I'm gonna go and throw a rubber stingray at his coffin.

Are you joking man?

Anyone who gets amusement from such misfortune has a lot of growing up to do. I know I did

[apothecary]

What the hell.

shaman I think you definitely need to edit your post.

That kind of negativity isn't gonna fly around here, no matter the topic of debate, thanks.

The discussions are healthy and heated, everyone should have their say, no need to say things like that.

[incognito]

Sorry guys, I must be one cold-hearted bitch cos I just couldn't stop laughing

BINGO!

thats the end of my rant on steve irwin.

people are people, its just saddening how desensitised people have become, and how being nasty and judgemental is becoming more and more popular in our culture re. the modern trend in reality tv shows catering for this particulary twisted part of our psyche, to sit back and laugh at others misfortunes and judge others for their imperfections. Maybee its is these peoples own sadness and insecuritys that make these weak people take an easy line and try and find solace and superiority in doing this to other people('belittling'.

I just think its high time for people to 'point their finger at themselves ' so to speak, before they begin their disgusting, bitching tirades, to realise that these imperfections and laughable qualitys may be there own , or better still , be nothing in comparison to their own personal demons and imperfections. Im just so over it. i find it so disgusting sometimes i literally feel like puking.

What has happened to manners, understanding, simple common courtesy, and most importantly EMPATHY.

To quote Jack Johnson, 'where'd all the good people go?"

[_e_]

something funny:

I recieved word of Steve's passing today, via a swedish friend in Australia and her conversation with my swedish partner Sophie.

Sophie came into the room after the phone call and said in a very serious tone.. "something terribly sad and strange has happened. Crocodile steve was killed by a sting rat... What the hell is a STING RAT anyway?"

something serious:

I believe Steve has done some very important work in bringing the australian environment and wildlife into the homes of mainstream society on a global level. His impact on peoples awareness of the Australian wildlife on a global level is relatively un-surpassed.

My heart goes out to his family, friends and loved ones.. Especially to his young daughter bindi, whom i have watched grow up with Steve on the tv.. I hope she can continue in the familys efforts to conserve and preserve the australian wildlife.

However,

something i have noted in my observation of media based 'wildlife identities' is that their is a certain imbalance involving the extent to which wildlife is impacted upon, trivialised and turned into a spectacle that is just plain unnecessary and to the detrament of the wildlife.

People such as Steve Irwin and the 'grizzlyman' (a very appropriate comparison you've drawn there puffingfish) actually got too close to the wildlife, completely disregarding and overstepping the natural balance they were supposed to be promoting.

Turning nature into a spectacle and 'entertaining yahoo' is simply an extention of the anthropocentric problems predominating our culture.

True nature conservationist's who remain in the public spotlight such as David Suzuki and David Attenborough(sp) are able to do their work in a much more respectfull and (in my opinion) effective and balanced manner.

It seems fitting that these issues are raised and explored at such times.

In my opinion, both Steve and the 'grizzlyman' had their hearts in the right place.. They definately WANTED to help, and by bringing up such issues they have helped in the long run,

i just think that the methodology and approach needs a bit of fine tuning.

[Green Chemist]

Sorry guys, I must be one cold-hearted bitch cos I just couldn't stop laughing

I don't really care what he has or hasn't done, he was just plain embarrassing, and if he gets a State Funeral I'm gonna go and throw a rubber stingray at his coffin.

Ha ha Ha Ha Ha Smells like a troll to me. is what I think of trolls! Umm the first obivious troll I have seen on the forums. Ruby I think you need a little more of this and this and less of this , , . I also offer my condolences to the Erwin family. While the man made me cringe, he was an animal lover and there is nothing wrong with that.

on ppl

[sobriquet]

However,

something i have noted in my observation of media based 'wildlife identities' is that their is a certain imbalance involving the extent to which wildlife is impacted upon, trivialised and turned into a spectacle that is just plain unnecessary and to the detrament of the wildlife.

People such as Steve Irwin and the 'grizzlyman' (a very appropriate comparison you've drawn there puffingfish) actually got too close to the wildlife, completely disregarding and overstepping the natural balance they were supposed to be promoting.

Turning nature into a spectacle and 'entertaining yahoo' is simply an extention of the anthropocentric problems predominating our culture.

True nature conservationist's who remain in the public spotlight such as David Suzuki and David Attenborough(sp) are able to do their work in a much more respectfull and (in my opinion) effective and balanced manner.

It seems fitting that these issues are raised and explored at such times.

In my opinion, both Steve and the 'grizzlyman' had their hearts in the right place.. They definately WANTED to help, and by bringing up such issues they have helped in the long run,

i just think that the methodology and approach needs a bit of fine tuning.

Well said. And basically this is the point throughout the debate.

That creating a spectacle out of wildlife is just plain silly. The line that Steve Irwin crossed was that he believed he was educating and enlightening when he was really just a circus performer.

The number of times he jumped on a crocodile's back for no apparent reason just for the spectacle makes me cringe when I think of it let alone see replays of it on TV. Steve was a showman, an entertainer, a circus performer, and an entrepreneur.

He was well known throughout the world and there's no doubt he was popular and will be missed.

[occidentalis]

The number of times he jumped on a crocodile's back for no apparent reason just for the spectacle makes me cringe when I think of it let alone see replays of it on TV. Steve was a showman, an entertainer, a circus performer, and an entrepreneur.

He was well known throughout the world and there's no doubt he was popular and will be missed.

This is it. He was an entertainer. And I have no problem with that - although I don't like the way he treated animals sometimes. When famous entertainment personalities die there are is always a lot of hype. But from what I can see his conservation activities were dubious at best. That's my problem with him.

As I said, my genuine sympathy to those who knew and loved him. My other opinions of him don't influence that. But lets not get carried away with all the media hype about his charitable conservationism. We all know how much the media cares about conservation, don't we .

[Torsten]

Ruby isn't a troll. She's been here a long time. I disagree with her opinion entirely, but she is entitled to post it.

Muchomundos - this isn't about intellectual muscle, this is about some people seeing through the charade and probing a little deeper than the mass media saturated rest of the population. I don't agree with the slagging off on the basis of his annoying manners etc and I certainly don't agree with Ruby's sentiments, but I do think that most of the Steve lovers here would be totally blind to the possibility that he was a sham. I am not saying he is, but none of you would know if he was, cos you are swallowing the media and PR hype hook line and sinker.

Passive daemon wrote:

Conservation has come a long way and it needs a public face no matter how cheesy or wrong people think that face is or how bad their ideas are.

Wrong! Redefining conservation to suit your Pr and financial needs is NOT helping anyone if it isn't actually conserving anything. I remember bug viewers being sold as conservation tools so that kids can learn about bugs. These days we would not accept that killing bugs at random is actually aiding conservation.

Similarly liberal politicians who claims that logging the tarkine forest is conservation is simply a lie and should be exposed as such.

It brings it into the mainstream and therefore it is noticed and then the problems can be adressed.

This is not enough if the method of conservationpresented to the viewer is the 'prod and see' approach. When I was a kid I was taught to be respectful and quiet, and preferably not to touch animals. That's not the message Steve gives and it means that these days kids don't learn about not touching baby birds, not handling frogs, and not pulling skink tails.

As for what he did with the money he earnt, who really gives a fuck how much he earned doing what and what he did with it.

I agree. I didn't give a fuck about what he did with his money until someone else exhaulted him as the benevolent conservationist (donating all profits to conservation was the term used I think). I am sure the person who said that and the millions who also believe this do not know this 'fact' from any other source than Steve himself, and history tells us that more often than not these thigns turn out to be lies. My point was only that we should get our facts straight before makign such outrageous claims - no matter whether positive or negative.

Arguing about whether the land he bought was a proper conservation reserve or whether it will support animal life is just fucking stupid. He purchased pristine land to protect it, isnt that enough for you?

Well, no. I have donated to two groups who purchased rainforest land for exactly the same reason Steve claimed. Several years later the land was sold to 'cover costs that had arisen by the administration of the fund'. ie, the trustees ran up debts on travel and other lifestyle needs which would then later be paid for by the land. These days I will only invest if I can see the constitution of the trust. People are dishonest - that's a fact of life.

So, to me a piece of land is a piece of potential real estate until it has been locked down somehow such as by trust constitution or by caveat). So, if some sheeple here claim that Steve has bought land as 'national parks' then that is totally ridiculous until the land has actually been protected. I mean, for all we know he might have been planning to open up luxury wildlife resort and zoos in these places.

Or to be good enough must one have every document and paper with all the fucking signatures to prove that they are King conservation.

40 years is a pretty short time in terms of biodiversity or conservation issues, so any one person can only guarantee the use of his land for his own lifetime (ie about 40 years) unless it is under caveat or in a trust. I've been looking into this a lot because of my plans for wandjina. At the moment wandjina gardens is a prime piece of real estate, possibly becoming one of the most desirable properties in Mullumbimby in the next few decades. I personally view it as worthless in monetary terms, because I will never sell it or do anything other than build a botanic garden on it. While my plans might be noble, but they are worthless once I am dead unless the property is protected by caveat or trust. The same applies to Steve's land. We are not criticising him for owning the land, I am criticising the blind followers who automatically assume everything Steve and the media tells them about this land is true.

He obviously did things his way and by crikey he got things done, so who knows what the crazy fu**er was gonna do with that land.

Exactly! But that works both ways. Again, I don't care what he does with it, but I get the shit when people are so gullible for good PR.

He has brought animals into the homes of people that may have been watching shite like Big Brother and educated them to the fact that out past that shopping centre there are things called animals that are amazing.

I must admit that I really can't comment much on that side of his achievements because until 5 years ago I didn't even know who he was and until a couple of years ago I had never watch a single show of his. I don't watch free to air channels and I really don't like dickheads, so the whole Steve Irwin thing had kinda passed me by. I didn't get interested in him until I heard about the wildlife hospital because I sued to work with WIRES and FAWNA, so the whole thing really appealed to me. But much of what I found out good about his work was marred by his political comments and associations. Overall I agree he has brought nature closer to the legions of couchpotatoes, but the value of this will be seen in years to come whether we will end up with a generation of real conservationists or a generation of anthropocentric prodders.

bijanto - Steve's kids will come across all sorts of responses in their lives. Steve made sure of that by becoming a celebrity. Are you saying that dead people who have kids should never be discussed? I think a rational and open discussion is always appropriate. Not so comments like that from Ruby obviously, but I am sure the kids will get other comments like that too.

jono- what's a child's comment got to do with anything? most kids love their parents unconditionally - at least until a certain age. It's not like she would hav any understanding of the issues that are discussed here. I also think that the only reaosn Steve will be remembered for long is because he is a TV celeb. As a conservationist I don't think his memory will fare well, but that depends on what happens with his trust. I'd expect him to be as popular as any '15 years of fame' TV star.

Jono, I would have never even commented on this issue if it wasn't for the outrageous and unsubstantiated claims people were making about Steve. If people had just mentioned the things they actually KNOW about him then this thread would have probably been a simple tribute. It's the 'PR as fact' attitude that gave me the shits.

[Torsten]

What the hell.

shaman I think you definitely need to edit your post.

Ooops. Just realised I am the mod in this one. Will edit.

Torsten, you mean this trust?.

yes.

You gotta be joking calling it a PR move, just from the front page I see links like "African Conservation", "Asian Conservation", "Concious Consumerism".

The ads in the sidebar also speak volumes.

Ok, you are either being sarcastic or unusually shallow. I really can't tell. But just in case it's the latter, let me go through this a bit deeper.

The ads in the sidebar are mostly commercial ads. That's fine as most trusts need these. I understand that a trust might put up a motor ad in return for receiving a vehicle, or a lab ad for veterinary supplies. I can even stomach the newspaper ad and the cross promotion. I don't think they are the ideal image to present, but we already agree that Steve did things differently and got them done.

However, I did a bit of on line research into the actual projects he lists so prominently.

African conservation - this is the De Wildt Cheetah & wildlife trust. They have a big site with all the old and recent news etc. In none of their newsletters or anywhere on their site does it mention Irwin or any of his associated entities (incl wildlife warriors). The site lists donations as small as single animal adoptions and as large as major sponsors and yet none of it refers to Irwin. I find that a bit weird.

In Asia he has obviously done quite a bit for Tigers, although FFI seems to limit his contribution to research done AT australia zoo rather than in the field as claimed on Wildlife warriors.

The site is really well structured, giving the impression it is deep and full of material, yet everything just links to little tidbits. In fact, only once I started digging I realised that FFI and De Wildt are the ONLY internatinal projects Wildlife Warriors is working with. I know it's not quantity, but quality that counts, but in both cases there does not seem to be much comment on the input provided, which is unusual for someone as media hungry as Steve.

Someone else here mentioned that he is a true conservationist because he saved crocs from certain death. Well, before we all bow down to the altruistic croc hunter, let's not forget that the deal he had with authorities is that he hunts them for free as long as he can keep them for his zoo. It's these little tidbits people here seem to gloss over. But it is great ideas like that which allowed his zoo to grow the way it did. After all this research I can't find a single thing this guy has done for free, out of the goodness of his heart, or as a public service. He charged for everything (including most of his 'ambassador' activities btw).

Again, I am not criticising Steve for this. He was obviously smart and made a buck. I am just trying to rattle some of the drones here awake to the fact they MAY have been had by glossy websites, hyped up news, and perfect PR (well, the baby thing aside) and that they are getting sucked in even deeper by the mass hysteria about his death. It is these sorts of discussion that make me see why PR is everything in australia and why Howard is still PM

[PD.]

Ruby isn't a troll. She's been here a long time. I disagree with her opinion entirely, but she is entitled to post it.

Muchomundos - this isn't about intellectual muscle, this is about some people seeing through the charade and probing a little deeper than the mass media saturated rest of the population. I don't agree with the slagging off on the basis of his annoying manners etc and I certainly don't agree with Ruby's sentiments, but I do think that most of the Steve lovers here would be totally blind to the possibility that he was a sham. I am not saying he is, but none of you would know if he was, cos you are swallowing the media and PR hype hook line and sinker.

Passive daemon wrote:

Conservation has come a long way and it needs a public face no matter how cheesy or wrong people think that face is or how bad their ideas are.

Wrong! Redefining conservation to suit your Pr and financial needs is NOT helping anyone if it isn't actually conserving anything. I remember bug viewers being sold as conservation tools so that kids can learn about bugs. These days we would not accept that killing bugs at random is actually aiding conservation.

Similarly liberal politicians who claims that logging the tarkine forest is conservation is simply a lie and should be exposed as such.

It brings it into the mainstream and therefore it is noticed and then the problems can be adressed.

This is not enough if the method of conservationpresented to the viewer is the 'prod and see' approach. When I was a kid I was taught to be respectful and quiet, and preferably not to touch animals. That's not the message Steve gives and it means that these days kids don't learn about not touching baby birds, not handling frogs, and not pulling skink tails.

As for what he did with the money he earnt, who really gives a fuck how much he earned doing what and what he did with it.

I agree. I didn't give a fuck about what he did with his money until someone else exhaulted him as the benevolent conservationist (donating all profits to conservation was the term used I think). I am sure the person who said that and the millions who also believe this do not know this 'fact' from any other source than Steve himself, and history tells us that more often than not these thigns turn out to be lies. My point was only that we should get our facts straight before makign such outrageous claims - no matter whether positive or negative.

Arguing about whether the land he bought was a proper conservation reserve or whether it will support animal life is just fucking stupid. He purchased pristine land to protect it, isnt that enough for you?

Well, no. I have donated to two groups who purchased rainforest land for exactly the same reason Steve claimed. Several years later the land was sold to 'cover costs that had arisen by the administration of the fund'. ie, the trustees ran up debts on travel and other lifestyle needs which would then later be paid for by the land. These days I will only invest if I can see the constitution of the trust. People are dishonest - that's a fact of life.

So, to me a piece of land is a piece of potential real estate until it has been locked down somehow such as by trust constitution or by caveat). So, if some sheeple here claim that Steve has bought land as 'national parks' then that is totally ridiculous until the land has actually been protected. I mean, for all we know he might have been planning to open up luxury wildlife resort and zoos in these places.

Or to be good enough must one have every document and paper with all the fucking signatures to prove that they are King conservation.

40 years is a pretty short time in terms of biodiversity or conservation issues, so any one person can only guarantee the use of his land for his own lifetime (ie about 40 years) unless it is under caveat or in a trust. I've been looking into this a lot because of my plans for wandjina. At the moment wandjina gardens is a prime piece of real estate, possibly becoming one of the most desirable properties in Mullumbimby in the next few decades. I personally view it as worthless in monetary terms, because I will never sell it or do anything other than build a botanic garden on it. While my plans might be noble, but they are worthless once I am dead unless the property is protected by caveat or trust. The same applies to Steve's land. We are not criticising him for owning the land, I am criticising the blind followers who automatically assume everything Steve and the media tells them about this land is true.

He obviously did things his way and by crikey he got things done, so who knows what the crazy fu**er was gonna do with that land.

Exactly! But that works both ways. Again, I don't care what he does with it, but I get the shit when people are so gullible for good PR.

He has brought animals into the homes of people that may have been watching shite like Big Brother and educated them to the fact that out past that shopping centre there are things called animals that are amazing.

I must admit that I really can't comment much on that side of his achievements because until 5 years ago I didn't even know who he was and until a couple of years ago I had never watch a single show of his. I don't watch free to air channels and I really don't like dickheads, so the whole Steve Irwin thing had kinda passed me by. I didn't get interested in him until I heard about the wildlife hospital because I sued to work with WIRES and FAWNA, so the whole thing really appealed to me. But much of what I found out good about his work was marred by his political comments and associations. Overall I agree he has brought nature closer to the legions of couchpotatoes, but the value of this will be seen in years to come whether we will end up with a generation of real conservationists or a generation of anthropocentric prodders.

bijanto - Steve's kids will come across all sorts of responses in their lives. Steve made sure of that by becoming a celebrity. Are you saying that dead people who have kids should never be discussed? I think a rational and open discussion is always appropriate. Not so comments like that from Ruby obviously, but I am sure the kids will get other comments like that too.

jono- what's a child's comment got to do with anything? most kids love their parents unconditionally - at least until a certain age. It's not like she would hav any understanding of the issues that are discussed here. I also think that the only reaosn Steve will be remembered for long is because he is a TV celeb. As a conservationist I don't think his memory will fare well, but that depends on what happens with his trust. I'd expect him to be as popular as any '15 years of fame' TV star.

Jono, I would have never even commented on this issue if it wasn't for the outrageous and unsubstantiated claims people were making about Steve. If people had just mentioned the things they actually KNOW about him then this thread would have probably been a simple tribute. It's the 'PR as fact' attitude that gave me the shits.

all i was sayin is that who cares about his money and shit, the poor fucker is dead.

Edited September 5, 2006 by Passive Daemon

[Pelinster]

all i was sayin is that who cares about his money and shit, the poor fucker is dead.

hear, hear!! <holds up VB stubby>

Edited September 5, 2006 by Pelinster

[gomaos]

I wasn't his greatest fan, but I liked him.

Especially in that movie...

but... it was inevedible:

2 old german sayings come to mind, and I always had to think abou them when I saw him on tv:

"He who places himself in danger will die in it..."

"The pitcher("krug"?) walks to the well until it breaks..."

he was addicted to adventure and danger...

probably didn't notice that EVERYBODY gets older, has to...

and that's what happened...

you'll be lucky 999 times, but number 1000 comes... always...

[elzar]

Nothing is more tragic than a loved ones death and his life will be missed by many.

With respect however,

Prodding a dangerous animal in the public arena is not conservation.

"That creating a spectacle out of wildlife is just plain silly. The line that Steve Irwin crossed was that he believed he was educating and enlightening when he was really just a circus performer."

Thanks eNo just how I wanted to word it. Can you really say the big brother watching bogan stereotype never knew about crocodiles and other such wildlife, or did they meerely just get a kick out of watching a media personality poke them?

"It brings it into the mainstream and therefore it is noticed and then the problems can be adressed."

Steve supported johnny who intends rip down the Tasmanian rainforests (one of many examples). You stand up to those in power get the people to act! That IMO would be an activist. Anything else is business, even with the best outcome for nature.

He may have done all these things with the best of intentions but even so i feel he wasn't perfect himself. Nobody is.

He wasnt a martyr. Many do not like his character as he portrays Australians to fit into the stereotype (remember Paul Hogans character if you will) which causes insult to some. He was a business man, nice bloke, father, husband, celebrity and a man with good intentions. All this will be remembered.

[elzar]

A further note and perhaps extreme exaggeration. Is bumfights really helping the homeless even if you give them money for food and alcohol? I am open to a more apropriate analogy if you have one.

[-bijanto-]

Steve's kids will come across all sorts of responses in their lives. Steve made sure of that by becoming a celebrity. Are you saying that dead people who have kids should never be discussed? I think a rational and open discussion is always appropriate. Not so comments like that from Ruby obviously, but I am sure the kids will get other comments like that too.

I don't know how to say this properly in English, but it just doesn't seem right to dig up bad things about someone when he has passed away (regardless of whether he has kids or not), unless you are in a class to study history etc, or in a court to reveal justice. Perhaps I'm just one of the old-fashioned guys to believe in values like that.

I personally admire the sharp, analytical views that most of you have shown, but IMO rational and open discussion about Steve Irwin should be better done in a more appropriate context. For example in a topic of "definition of conservation" etc. At the moment, the topic is more like "to inform that someone has just died". I would say good things about him if I could, and may he rest in peace. I think all of us deserve it when we die.

Edited September 5, 2006 by -bijanto-