Croc hunter dead???

[PD.]

It seems that Germaine Greer who has been panned by the Aus media also gets it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1865124,00.html

'That sort of self-delusion is what it takes to be a real Aussie larrikin'

Germaine Greer

Tuesday September 5, 2006

The Guardian

The world mourns. World-famous wildlife warrior Steve Irwin has died a hero, doing the thing he loved, filming a sequence for a new TV series. He was supposed to have been making a new documentary to have been called Ocean's Deadliest, but, when filming was held up by bad weather, he decided to "go off and shoot a few segments" for his eight-year-old daughter's upcoming TV series, "just stuff on the reef and little animals". His manager John Stainton "just said fine, anything that would keep him moving and keep his adrenaline going". Evidently it's Stainton's job to keep Irwin pumped larger than life, shouting "Crikey!" and punching the air.

Irwin was the real Crocodile Dundee, a great Australian, an ambassador for wildlife, a global phenomenon, a superhuman generator of merchandise, books, interactive video-games and action figures. The only creatures he couldn't dominate were parrots. A parrot once did its best to rip his nose off his face. Parrots are a lot smarter than crocodiles.

What seems to have happened on Batt Reef is that Irwin and a cameraman went off in a little dinghy to see what they could find. What they found were stingrays. You can just imagine Irwin yelling: "Just look at these beauties! Crikey! With those barbs a stingray can kill a horse!" (Yes, Steve, but a stingray doesn't want to kill a horse. It eats crustaceans, for God's sake.) All Australian children know about stingrays. We are now being told that only three people have ever been killed by Australian stingrays. One of them must have been the chap who bought it 60 years ago in Brighton Baths where my school used to go on swimming days. Port Philip Bay was famous for stingrays, which are fine as long as you can see them, but they do what most Dasyatidae do, which is bury themselves in the sand or mud with only their eyes sticking out. What you don't want to do with a stingray is stand on it. The lashing response of the tail is automatic; the barb is coated with a bacterial slime as deadly as rotten oyster toxin.

As a Melbourne boy, Irwin should have had a healthy respect for stingrays, which are actually commoner, and bigger, in southern waters than they are near Port Douglas, where he was killed. The film-makers maintain that the ray that took Irwin out was a "bull ray", or Dasyatis brevicaudata, but this is not usually found as far north as Port Douglas. Marine biologist Dr Meredith Peach has been quoted as saying, "It's really quite unusual for divers to be stung unless they are grappling with the animal and, knowing Steve Irwin, perhaps that may have been the case." Not much sympathy there then.

The only time Irwin ever seemed less than entirely lovable to his fans (as distinct from zoologists) was when he went into the Australia Zoo crocodile enclosure with his month-old baby son in one hand and a dead chicken in the other. For a second you didn't know which one he meant to feed to the crocodile. If the crocodile had been less depressed it might have made the decision for him. As the catatonic beast obediently downed its tiny snack, Irwin walked his baby on the grass, not something that paediatricians recommend for rubbery baby legs even when there isn't a stir-crazy carnivore a few feet away. The adoring world was momentarily appalled. They called it child abuse. The whole spectacle was revolting. The crocodile would rather have been anywhere else and the chicken had had a grim life too, but that's entertainment at Australia Zoo.

Irwin's response to the sudden outburst of criticism was bizarre. He believed that he had the crocodile under control. But he could have fallen over, suggested an interviewer. He admitted that was possible, but only if a meteor had hit the earth and caused an earthquake of 6.6 on the Richter scale. That sort of self-delusion is what it takes to be a "real Aussie larrikin".

What Irwin never seemed to understand was that animals need space. The one lesson any conservationist must labour to drive home is that habitat loss is the principal cause of species loss. There was no habitat, no matter how fragile or finely balanced, that Irwin hesitated to barge into, trumpeting his wonder and amazement to the skies. There was not an animal he was not prepared to manhandle. Every creature he brandished at the camera was in distress. Every snake badgered by Irwin was at a huge disadvantage, with only a single possible reaction to its terrifying situation, which was to strike. Easy enough to avoid, if you know what's coming. Even my cat knew that much. Those of us who live with snakes, as I do with no fewer than 12 front-fanged venomous snake species in my bit of Queensland rainforest, know that they will get out of our way if we leave them a choice. Some snakes are described as aggressive, but, if you're a snake, unprovoked aggression doesn't make sense. Snakes on a plane only want to get off. But Irwin was an entertainer, a 21st-century version of a lion-tamer, with crocodiles instead of lions.

In 2004, Irwin was accused of illegally encroaching on the space of penguins, seals and humpback whales in Antarctica, where he was filming a documentary called Ice Breaker. An investigation by the Australian Environmental Department resulted in no action being taken, which is not surprising seeing that John Howard, the prime minister, made sure that Irwin was one of the guests invited to a "gala barbecue" for George Bush a few months before. Howard is now Irwin's chief mourner, which is only fair, seeing that Irwin announced that Howard is the greatest leader the world has ever seen.

The animal world has finally taken its revenge on Irwin, but probably not before a whole generation of kids in shorts seven sizes too small has learned to shout in the ears of animals with hearing 10 times more acute than theirs, determined to become millionaire animal-loving zoo-owners in their turn.

Haha, i really do see what you mean now torsten.

people that expell such shit as fact are very annoying.

[sobriquet]

Haha, i really do see what you mean now torsten.

people that expell such shit as fact are very annoying.

It's only an opinion piece. Some will agree with it and others won't. No surprise there.

See also...

hxxp://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-09-06T104910Z_01_SYD59156_RTRUKOC_0_UK-AUSTRALIA-IRWIN-GREER.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=∩=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2

Edited September 7, 2006 by eNo

[in_spirit]

The Claims may be unsubstantiated by you that does not make them unsubstantiated it is not our role to provide a burden of proof for Steve - why cant he have just been what he was and good on him for playing the media to his advantage both in business and for conservation - why dont you prove otherwise to the millions you claim are blind!!!

You are missing the point. I don't care about who or what Steve was or did.

Interesting point you raise about who is responsible for substantiating things. Under your concept the Bjelke Peterson government was honest, guantanamo is a friendly prison, Cheryl Kernot really did love the labor party (not gareth Evans), Skase was a victim rather than scammer, Bond was gullible rather than conniving, the salvation army general did not embezzle 3 million dollars of donations, and yes, the earth is flat.

Good point you make but I haven't made these claims - and its not my responsiblity to prove or disprove these statements, If someone wants to make the statement that something was or wasn't done as stated they bare that responsibility to prove! I trust no governmental bodies etc etc but I do believe that Steve Irwin was a role model for Australians and that he did a lot of good for Australia

Putting land into trust is not 100% look at what happened with Lane Cove National Park and Aboriginal Land Claims!

It can't be done 100%, but you can at least create some hurdles.

My point is just that!!

So what if his methods were socially unacceptable it doesn't mean they didn't work, look back through history and this is a repeated sequence ie someone with a beleif that rocks the standard loses their life in that beleif and years down the track........... OOOOH SHIT THE WORLD REALLY IS ROUND.

Interesting point, because I am trying to make EXACTLY the same one. I find discussion on his methods etc is healthy and who knows, maybe his methods will turn out to be better. However, most of this discussion is not about what we know, but what we have been told and blindly accepted. Just like people blindly accepted that the earth is flat, until someone questioned the acccepted standard. In an evidence based society we need to look beyond the PR and entertainment to look at the facts. And facts appear to be very thin on the ground in this issue.

Glad to see we agree although just because you cant see the facts does not mean they are not facts!

What does it matter how far down the track the good comes from the action so long as it happens, I recall reading here that it will be future gens that benefit from this site, what diff???

I don't think the point was 'how far in the future', but rather 'if ever'. And surely even you must agree that giving credit where there is no benefit is a bit silly.

Could the same not be said for anything if it were not trialled This website may or may not change viewpoints in the future but the credit is still given for the effort

This stinks - it is un Australian - you people attack a dead person and will not open your eyes to the fact that maybe you are wrong - just maybe there is no sham and just maybe this guy was the good guy.

I am not attacking a dead person, I am attacking the live sheeple who make hyped up claims about a dead person. Is that un Australian too? Are you saying to be australian we need to all fall in line in believe the hype? Maybe you are right. It certainly seems so in this case.

In every post I have made I have stated that I may be wrong and that all I am trying to do is for folks to consider other possibilities. In contrast, the true believers appear to have no such room for other opinions and other considerations. So, once again I agree with your statement about how it stinks that people "won't open their eyes to the fact that they may be wrong", but your projectionism is aiming that statement at the wrong person(s).

For this I apologise as IT wasn;t actually meant for you, but the people here that made cold hearted statements like the rubber stingray etc. That is un Australian , Torsten don't get me wrong I dont beleive this man was perfect no-one is we all have faults and weaknesses but what I am saying is that Steve Irwin regardless of what he actually did or didn;t do made a success of himself. I visited both his parents and his own zoos?and Steve just had it, He went beyond to make a visit to his zoo esp 4 children a memorable one where they had fun and did learn about nature - my kids are testament to this!!

I smell jealousy

LOL. So you DO have a sense of humour after all.

Seriously, there are many people I look up to and who I might be jealous of, but Steve Irwin is not one of them. Other than his attempts at conservation he stood for almost everything I dislike.

MMmmm Sarcasm?

Seriously, This also was not aimed at you!

To those who would beleive otherwise hold your heads high,

Yeah, that's what happens. They are also the ones who crawl under rocks in disbelief when they find out they've been embarrassingly gullible. It happens all the time.

Again, (as it doesn't seem to sink in), I am not saying this is the case here, but the refusal to accept that other options exist is the best way to get caught out.

I stated this prior, given worded differently, I think !! It works both ways The believers maybe conned into believing and sometimes non believers are conned albeit by themselves usually into not seeing truth for truth which is what I am saying.- I agree there is often refuasal to alternative truths but it comes from both sides!

I hope no-one here gets that big, that they will be dogged upon their final day.

Most folks here would dodge the superficial celebrity thing if they have a choice I think. So while we might have a future David Attenborough amonst us, I am pretty certain we won't have a future Steve Irwin.

Allow me to ponder this one!

Edited September 7, 2006 by evil

[ballzac]

And here's something the New York magazine "Steppin' Out" has published.....

Wow...poor Tara!

[woof woof woof]

i liked his shows...... and i think without even knowing the finer details of his life that he has done more good then most of us on this planet will ever do for conservation - helping animals.

he seemed to me a genuine / warm hearted / enthousiastic / good crazy person.

heh,.... i absolutely wouldnt mind doing something i loved and making a buck at it.

we are not talking about a saint here either - just a guy who loved wildlife to the max.

hope the best for his family and friends! hope that his tragic loss will be a positive stimmulus for others to build on his example.

[occidentalis]

he seemed to me a genuine / warm hearted / enthousiastic / good crazy person.

heh,.... i absolutely wouldnt mind doing something i loved and making a buck at it.

we are not talking about a saint here either - just a guy who loved wildlife to the max.

OK, I finally get it. I can really understand where you are coming from when you say this.

[mycomorphosis]

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.

Actually, your sarcastic comment regarding profits Irwin recieved for filming a public service announcement was the first mention of money in this thread, so essentially, YOU raised the issue of what he was doing with his money. This was not in response to claims that he was a "benevolent conservationist, donating all profit to charity", but rather a simple suggestion that he was a "truly genuine, kind-hearted person who stood by his convictions." This is the kind of thing I have found disheartening about this discussion. I'm sure we can sit around pointing out the guy's flaws and poking holes in everything he was involved in until the cows come home, but was it really necessary to immediately hone in on the negative the minute the guy died and the opportunity to berate him arose?

I guess I just don't really understand what compels people to seek out and expose the worst in a person who clearly had a lot of very good intentions, particularly when that person was working to create positive outcomes in a field which is of considerable interest to so many of us here. Regardless of what we do or don't know about the direction of profits from the projects he was involved in, I think it was crystal clear that he had a genuine desire to do good things for animals, and that in itself warrants some respect in my book. Like ({E}) suggested - perhaps his approach could have used a little fine tuning at times, but his heart was in the right place. You don't have to be a "drone" or a "sheep" to prefer to appreciate the positive aspects of a person's life rather than focus on the worst.

I couldn't care less if he was generous or not, but I do get the shits when people exhalt someone for something that person did not do. The point here is that no one seems to have the foggiest about most of the things that Steve has ACTUALLY done. The best supporting evidence we have heard so far is that a friend of a friend who is roolly trustworthy said Steve is alright. geez, get real folks. Let's stick to the facts.

See, this is the thing I really don't get. This thread basically started off as a source of information on the death of a well known personality, and as the finer details became clear, some people began paying their respects as well. The initial negativity seemingly came out of nowhere, but quickly escalated as other people jumped on the bandwagon. So a couple of people expressed their disdain at the unnecessary criticism, and all of a sudden you're claiming that "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". This might have been ok had it been directed at a particular comment or had there been any specific basis for the argument, but it seems that you have taken this unsupported notion and applied it as a blanket statement to everybody who has dared to suggest Irwin might have done some good work. And now we're at the point where those who think highly of Irwin are expected to provide "supporting evidence" as to why he should be worthy of their respect or admiration, lest they be labelled sheep and condescendingly told to "get real".

...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.

What exactly is it that has lead you to presume that any of us have based our comments on knowledge gained simply from the media and PR hype? It seems to me that you have continually emphasised this notion throughout the entire discussion without providing any basis for your assumptions.

The fact is, even before his death it was common knowledge to many Australians (particularly those with interested kids) that Steve Irwin owned and ran a large zoo (with wildlife preservation a priority), set up a large and efficient wildlife hospital, and established the Wildlife Warriors organisation, which supports many wonderful wildlife conservation projects (non-profit, no government funding). In the eyes of many - myself included - these things alone are quite enough to warrant some respect and admiration, and it would be reasonable to deduce from this knowledge that he is a generous and kind hearted person. Why then, is it so inconceivable that people might think highly of the man of their own accord, independantly of media hype and blind consumerism? Why do you insist that any positive comment on his conservation efforts equates to being gullible for good PR? And more to the point, how can you make such claims without actually proving that anybody had it wrong in the first place?

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'.

For someone so concerned with getting the facts straight,you might have been a little careless with this issue.

How do you know for sure if he has caveats on his land or not? I couldn't find any information to either affirm or deny this, but from what I understand of the intended purposes for these many areas of land, I would imagine legal security for the future would have been a priority.

Edited September 9, 2006 by mycomorphosis

[mycomorphosis]

It seems that Germaine Greer who has been panned by the Aus media also gets it.

Germaine Greer proved she had no idea what she was talking about with this comment:

"What Irwin never seemed to understand was that animals need space. The one lesson any conservationist must labour to drive home is that habitat loss is the principal cause of species loss."

This just shows how very little she knew about Steve Irwin's conservation efforts. If anybody knew about the impact of habitat loss, it was him. In fact, he was involved in a project aimed at implementing a Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals, which would see the implementation of regulations aimed at avoiding or minimising the impact of land clearing on wildlife.

For those people who share Germaine Greer's sentiments on the abbhorrence of Irwin's "manhandling" and "badgering" of "distressed" animals (which were generally released completely unscathed mind you), I imagine you must also feel similarly angered by the idea of sports fishing. I mean, the fish are caught, dragged into boats by hooks embedded in their mouths or insides, "manhandled" and shown around, then tossed back into the water often with hooks still in place, or wounds from their removal. Then I guess we'd have to talk about rodeos, where animals are tortured with pinching straps, whips, ropes, and other devices suitable for causing distress and creating a show. Shall we start on circuses anybody? Surely you'd have to be against keeping essentially wild animals in small trucks and yards, forcing them to perform in shows several times a day for our entertainment. The funniest thing is, I was sure some of the people who were criticisng Irwin's handling of animals were also advocating sport hunting earlier in the discussion. I think I smell hypocrisy!

As for these kinds of comments (largely from the people who claim that Irwin's supporter's are being gullible for media hype):

"Please remind us! Just how has he helped australian wildlife other than for his own profit?"

"Steve was somewhat an impediment to science based rather than emotive based conservation policy"

"he disguised his personal investments and trust as conservation"

"But from what I can see his conservation activities were dubious at best. That's my problem with him."

"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."

"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)."

^This is what I call "outrageous and unsubstantiated".

Every one of the parcels of land the Irwin's purchased have been chosen for the status of wildlife and plant life therein. Some of them are portions of the most endangered habitat types in Australia. Each piece of land is in the process of extensive conservation programs - reforestation and restoration, wildlife rehabilitation, preservation and protection of endangered species mammals, birds, insects, plants, reptiles, conservation related research, protection of old growth forests, etc. Here I'll post an excerpt of what goes on at Ironbark Station, which was purchased and established by the Irwin's and is now run by Steve's Dad:

 

* 3450 acres.

* Great dividing Range, where East coast meets dry West.

* purchased-325 acres in 1994 to save a dwindling koala population- less than 12 left.

* Immediately commenced reforestation including 44,000 Eucalypts.

* Purchased 325 acres in 1998, of totally destroyed/ poisoned cattle property- commenced immediate reforestation, restoration.

* Established 5 acre hack-out facility for rehab marsupials in 1999.

* Purchased 1,000 acres of grazing property in 1999.

* Year 2000, Lyn Irwin Memorial Fund. Please go to this site. Bob Irwin became full time manager of Iron Bark Station.

* We will continue to expand on purchasing adjoining land as it comes available.

* Iron Bark Station is designated as a wildlife sanctuary and Australia’s foremost rehabilitation/ release facility for native species.

* Since 2001 a full time wildlife rehabilitator has been instated.

* Purchased 1,800 acres in 2002.

There are so many plans for the future of the Ironbark Station conservation project, and this is just one of many similar programs on land purchased by the Irwin's all around the country. For more info, check out this site for concise information: http://www.crocodilehunter.com/conservatio...cquisition.html

There are numerous other wonderful projects Steve Irwin established, funded and supported, including his privately owned and funded Australia Zoo, Australia's largest wildlife hospital (aiming at being the world's largest), Wildlife Warriors, which now runs independantly of the Irwin's but has their full support, and many more. His passion for the environment was tireless, and he has my full respect and admiration.

[occidentalis]

For those people who share Germaine Greer's sentiments on the abbhorrence of Irwin's "manhandling" and "badgering" of "distressed" animals (which were generally released completely unscathed mind you), I imagine you must also feel similarly angered by the idea of sports fishing. I mean, the fish are caught, dragged into boats by hooks embedded in their mouths or insides, "manhandled" and shown around, then tossed back into the water often with hooks still in place, or wounds from their removal. Then I guess we'd have to talk about rodeos, where animals are tortured with pinching straps, whips, ropes, and other devices suitable for causing distress and creating a show. Shall we start on circuses anybody? Surely you'd have to be against keeping essentially wild animals in small trucks and yards, forcing them to perform in shows several times a day for our entertainment. The funniest thing is, I was sure some of the people who were criticisng Irwin's handling of animals were also advocating sport hunting earlier in the discussion. I think I smell hypocrisy!

OK I'll bite

You're absolutely correct. I do have a problem with all of those things. Animals are not for our entertainment. If we are really learning something from causing distress to an animal then it can sometimes be justified IMO. But not just because we think it's fun.

As for sport hunting, while I don't like it on any level, my feeling (gained from a degree in conservation biology and enviro science) is that in some cases it may be a good means of raising money for otherwise underfunded conservation projects, and in these cases may represent the most pragmatic method of providing conservation services. If this is the case, there is good science there to support it, and there are good ethical guidelines to ensure it is done as humanely as possible, I am willing to put aside my personal discomfort with it. If trophy hunting lead to a species being 'saved' at the cost of a few individuals being killed, I'd be pretty proud to be a hypocrite it that's what you think I am.

Apart from that, thanks for providing the first real data we have had on Irwin's conservation activities.

[Torsten]

Actually, your sarcastic comment regarding profits Irwin recieved for filming a public service announcement was the first mention of money in this thread, so essentially, YOU raised the issue of what he was doing with his money.

No, I didn't raise the issue of what he DID with his money, I raised the issue that taking money for a public service annoucement done for a public service that he claims so close to his heart does not indicate a "a truly genuine, [] person who stood by his convictions".

Where did I mention anything about what he was doing with that money? You are putting words in my mouth. I don't care what he does with his money. I do care that people praise his convictions even though it is evident he charged for things that most other people with similar convictions would do for free.

Again, let me repeat as it doesn't seem to be sinking in, I don't care what he does with that 150K. I don't even care if he charges AQIS 500K, but if he charges money for soemthing he should be doing on the basis of his convictions then he does not appear genuine to me. That was all I was pointing out with that remark.

I guess I just don't really understand what compels people to seek out and expose the worst in a person who clearly had a lot of very good intentions, particularly when that person was working to create positive outcomes in a field which is of considerable interest to so many of us here. Regardless of what we do or don't know about the direction of profits from the projects he was involved in, I think it was crystal clear that he had a genuine desire to do good things for animals, and that in itself warrants some respect in my book.

The christian missionaries had great intentiosn when they brought religion to the rest of the world, but did they really do much good? Some will argue yes, but most will argue not. Intention alone is not enough to do good.

But while I have an opinion about Steve's methods, I actually dont' think I posted much in that regard (at least not until the discussion focussed on it). That wasn't what my comments were about and you are once again making untrue claims.

You don't have to be a "drone" or a "sheep" to prefer to appreciate the positive aspects of a person's life rather than focus on the worst.

Good point. And if it would have been almost any other person I don't think things would have gone that way. The problem is that when you there is this mass hysteria about a celebrity then it starts to penetrate even those who really don't want to have anythign to do with it. For example, I am absolutely appalled at the idea of a state funeral being offered to his family. It is an insult to so many great australians who have made far greater contributions and were not offered such an honour. This is where the PR machine forces itself onto individuals who had no real opinion before, but now feel they need to speak up. And the only way to speak up is to get the masses to snap back into reality and to get a rational perspective. This was completely lost in the days after his death and the hype that was posted here was no different than that in the rest of the media.

So a couple of people expressed their disdain at the unnecessary criticism, and all of a sudden you're claiming that "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". This might have been ok had it been directed at a particular comment or had there been any specific basis for the argument, but it seems that you have taken this unsupported notion and applied it as a blanket statement to everybody who has dared to suggest Irwin might have done some good work.

Some folks claimed he had done good work and been generous etc etc, but when I checked there was nothing to actually substantiate this except the glossy media image. So I asked if anyone actually KNOWS anything or if they are just regurgatating the PR hype. Even the person who posted about havign worked for him could not substantiate ANYTHING about his supposed great deeds. I am not claiming that there aren't any great deeds - I am claming that no one here actually KNOWS of any and hence maybe they should check their facts first.

I have at no point claimed to know ANYTHING about Steve I. But it seems that people who know even less about him are making very strong claims about his benevolence etc. It might turn out that he was far more generous than even his perfect PR image conveys, and nothing wuld please me more than for that to be the case, but at this point there is simply zip evidence of that. However, given his VERY tidy PR image I would be very surprised if any good deeds of his are hidden, which means that at this point, taking all this into account, I am rather dubious about a lot of this (but that is just my personal opinion and I did not claim that to be fact).

And now we're at the point where those who think highly of Irwin are expected to provide "supporting evidence" as to why he should be worthy of their respect or admiration, lest they be labelled sheep and condescendingly told to "get real".

Yep, why not?

Whenever people admire a hero/celeb they are in danger of being sucked in. Nobody likes facing up to the fact that their hero is not as heroic as they believed him to be, but is that healthy?

So, anyone who blindly follows a hero and parttakes in the mass hysteria surrouding a hero, is a sheep. That's the definition of a sheep - a blind follower. So the only thing that distinguished a sheep from a non-sheep is the 'blind' part. And all I was doing was getting people to question their blind faith in the man, which (as is evident from the dire lack of any factual information) is based purely on PR and media hype.

What exactly is it that has lead you to presume that any of us have based our comments on knowledge gained simply from the media and PR hype?

Because no one here (or elsewhere in fact) has been able to post a single simple factoid that could be supported by anything other than media hype and PR. You know, like a simple thing such as a verifying comment from one of the many organisations he is supporting, a controversial article about his land purchases to show they exist, well, anything really that doesn't come from one of his employers, employees or politicians.

The fact is, even before his death it was common knowledge to many Australians (particularly those with interested kids) that Steve Irwin owned and ran a large zoo (with wildlife preservation a priority), set up a large and efficient wildlife hospital, and established the Wildlife Warriors organisation, which supports many wonderful wildlife conservation projects (non-profit, no government funding). In the eyes of many - myself included - these things alone are quite enough to warrant some respect and admiration, and it would be reasonable to deduce from this knowledge that he is a generous and kind hearted person.

I am not sure where you have come to the conclusion that simply owning a zoo is a conservation effort in itself. Most conservationists would not agree. In fact, many zoos do exactly the opposite of conservation.

The wildlife hopsital is a great idea, no matter what the motives etc. However, 2million dollars from the government goes a long way towards it and it is after all a major tourist attraction in itself further enriching him. Just so we are clear, I don't care if he makes money on it etc. But I do care if people claim it to be a great act of benevolence if it could just as well be nothing more than an act of capitalism.

As for wildlife warriors.... I have seen more conservation scams than real conservation efforts, so I am a little sceptical with these sorts of trusts. Many are merely set up as tax write offs to allow the beneficiaries to travel etc for free. Even though the website is impressive, when it comes down to it there are really only 2 projects on there. The african one makes no mention of his generosity even though it lists virtually every other donation. The asian one only mentions the help he provided via australia zoo - ie indicating an exchange, breeding or veterinary program, rather than field conservation as claimed on the wildlife warriors website. If eithe rone of these projects ahd mentioned him in a greater capacity I would not have doubted the great work he is supposed to have done, but when the only evidence available is in clear contradiction of the PR then a reasonably smart person has reason to question the whole PR image.

So, yes, I would think that if he has doen all these things then he is definitely worth the admiration he has been given. But my point all along has been that NO ONE here has offered aany evidence whatsoever and hence no one here actually knows anything. The only things we KNOW are that he stocked his zoo with rescued animals and that he provided zoo based help for the tiger project (which may be as little as boarding some animals at the zoo). That is all we actually KNOW. Everything else we have been told by PR. And THAT is my point.

Why then, is it so inconceivable that people might think highly of the man of their own accord, independantly of media hype and blind consumerism?

But no one is actually thinking indepedently of the PR!!!! You just don't get it. Until you have actually verified a piece of PR it is only PR and not independent fact. And hence it is blind consumerism

Why do you insist that any positive comment on his conservation efforts equates to being gullible for good PR? And more to the point, how can you make such claims without actually proving that anybody had it wrong in the first place?

I am not trying to prove anything. I am trying to get people to question for themselves. As a free thinking individual I would hate to find out in 2 months or so that Steve in fact lied about all the overseas conservation work. It's not like it is a rare occurrence for celebs to lie and PR to deceive. So, by believeing everything he says wihtout ever questioning anything no one knows what the truth is. And that's the situationw e are at right now. So far no one here has been able to actually post a single fact about anything re Steve's benevolence/generosity. The only two facts here are what I posted and they are not quite in line with the PR. So yes, if absolutely nothing can be verified then you are indeed gullible (regardless of whether it turns out to be true or not).

For someone so concerned with getting the facts straight,you might have been a little careless with this issue.

Please point out where I have been careless. Half the things you accused me of above were things I did not say, and the other half were things related to the fact that no one here knows anything (myself included) and most don't seem to mind (myself not included).

How do you know for sure if he has caveats on his land or not? I couldn't find any information to either affirm or deny this, but from what I understand of the intended purposes for these many areas of land, I would imagine legal security for the future would have been a priority.

As I said above, I don't know. And yes, legal security/hurdles should have been a priority. And if I one day find out that he had those priorities it will immediately remove much of my doubt (ditto for the asian and african projects). At the moment the scales of PR vs fact are not in his favour (in my mind), but any supporting facts could change that rather quickly.

It will not change my opinion about how the vast majority of people had no interest in questioning any of this though and it is a scary reminder just how easily we (including those who one would expect to be a lot more resilient to such mass hypnosis) are led down the primrose path.

[Torsten]

OK I'll bite

You're absolutely correct. I do have a problem with all of those things.

[]

Apart from that, thanks for providing the first real data we have had on Irwin's conservation activities.

I'll bite too. I have a problem with non-essential suffering for animals.

And I also want to thank you for providing the first real information (albeit not from an independent resource!!). As I said before, it's easy to make claims on one's own media outlet, but the detail provided here at least gives some verifiable facts - and that's all I've been asking for. I am happy to change my mind about his anytime

So, horray, we have one Irwin fan who actually knew what he was on about. Now, if I could only get into that site

[Agamemnon]

Meanwhile, in the latest news.....

Edited September 9, 2006 by Agamemnon

[PD.]

The media lies, liES, LIES.

Jebus Torsten you are sounding more and more like Dave Thrussell with every post .

[Torsten]

The media lies, liES, LIES.

Jebus Torsten you are sounding more and more like Dave Thrussell with every post .

LOL, for a moment I thought you were referring to his work with techno outfit SNOG, but after a quick google I realise he is more famous for being a conspiracy nut.

Na, not very fond of conspiracy theories, but I am fond of history and it tends to repeat itself. Don't forget that most countries go through a dictatorship at some stage and australia is not immune to such a development, so eternal vigilance is required. In these times the media is the most important tool for such a process, so it scares me that the media can get away with what it does at the moment in this country.

[PD.]

so it scares me that the media can get away with what it does at the moment in this country.

enter the comfort zone

enjoy your life of ease

tune in your T.V.

contract that thought disease

D. Thrussell D. Beattie

This world spins but not for you

and all of their lies have come true

and i see a light but behind there is a night

this world spins but not for you.

D Thrussell, P Bourke

"...there is joy...

there is fun...

on the third mall from the sun...

we see the light...

and we try to buy...

in that old familiar way...

it just gets worse every day...

and we're too numb to fight it.

Roerto Marchetti, "notes from the black womb"

"Fascism is corporatism" - Benito Mussolini,

now......where did i sit my tinfoil hat................

[mycomorphosis]

Apologies in advance for the super long post (rabbiting on is my forte ) . I just realised you can't use more than ten quotes, so I've just bolded the quotes instead.

Again, let me repeat as it doesn't seem to be sinking in, I don't care what he does with that 150K. I don't even care if he charges AQIS 500K, but if he charges money for soemthing he should be doing on the basis of his convictions then he does not appear genuine to me. That was all I was pointing out with that remark.

Fair point, and it was not my intention to put words in your mouth, but rather a misinterpretation of your words. However, the fact that you don't care what he does with his money raises another issue. Is it really fair to sledge somebody for accepting funds if you are not willing to consider what they may have been using those funds for? At the risk of repeating myself, Irwin was responsible for an overwhelming number of privately funded conservation projects on various parcels of land he had purchased, all of which required enourmous outpourings of cash. Now I realise he was also making profits from his zoo, but there was a hell of a lot of conservation work going on there too, and both the zoo and the hospital were expanding constantly, which would have also required massive funding, not to mention the establishment and ongoing administration of the Wildlife Warriors organisation. The way I see it, if he had the opportunity to make a buck along the way, he probably needed to take it, and I certainly don't blame him.

I can't say for sure whether that 1.5 million dollar payment was spent on reforestation of an endangered habitat or a trip to hawaii, but it doesn't take a genious to see that the numerous conservation projects he established and funded required vast amounts of money, so good on him for getting it from wherever he can. Regardless of how he spent the cash, I personally feel it would be a little petty to criticise the guy for accepting funds for something he "should do on the basis of convictions" without looking at the bigger picture and taking into account everything else he has done for the environment out of his own pocket.

The christian missionaries had great intentiosn when they brought religion to the rest of the world, but did they really do much good? Some will argue yes, but most will argue not. Intention alone is not enough to do good. But while I have an opinion about Steve's methods, I actually dont' think I posted much in that regard (at least not until the discussion focussed on it). That wasn't what my comments were about and you are once again making untrue claims.

Again, I am not making untrue claims, and that comment was not aimed directly at you but moreso at the negativity in general. The efforts of the Christian missionaries are simply not comparable, so I don't believe that is a suitable analogy. Irwin hasn't done any real damage to anybody, but the reality of the good work he has done is indisputable, unlike the Christian missionaries. Intention alone may not be enough to do good, but surely it is enough to justify respectful sentiments on the passing of a fellow human.

For example, I am absolutely appalled at the idea of a state funeral being offered to his family. It is an insult to so many great australians who have made far greater contributions and were not offered such an honour. This is where the PR machine forces itself onto individuals who had no real opinion before, but now feel they need to speak up. And the only way to speak up is to get the masses to snap back into reality and to get a rational perspective. This was completely lost in the days after his death and the hype that was posted here was no different than that in the rest of the media.

I think this is merely a matter of opinion, and I'm not sure what makes yours any more righteous than anybody else's. There are a great many people who would argue that Steve Irwin is a perfect candidate for a state funeral, given that he has put a huge effort improving the future of the Australian environment, made great contributions to education and research, touched the lives of many children and adults both here and around the world as an entertainer and role model, and provided a face (albeit a controversial face at times) for wildlife and conservation. You may not agree with all these suggestions and that is your prerogative, but while I respect your right to argue the point, I don't think that puts you in a position to insist that the alternative perspective is irrational and requires a reality check.

Some folks claimed he had done good work and been generous etc etc, but when I checked there was nothing to actually substantiate this except the glossy media image. So I asked if anyone actually KNOWS anything or if they are just regurgatating the PR hype. Even the person who posted about havign worked for him could not substantiate ANYTHING about his supposed great deeds. I am not claiming that there aren't any great deeds - I am claming that no one here actually KNOWS of any and hence maybe they should check their facts first. I have at no point claimed to know ANYTHING about Steve I. But it seems that people who know even less about him are making very strong claims about his benevolence etc. It might turn out that he was far more generous than even his perfect PR image conveys, and nothing wuld please me more than for that to be the case, but at this point there is simply zip evidence of that. However, given his VERY tidy PR image I would be very surprised if any good deeds of his are hidden, which means that at this point, taking all this into account, I am rather dubious about a lot of this (but that is just my personal opinion and I did not claim that to be fact.

See, I don't get why you feel people should have to provide substantial evidence to support their OPINIONS of a person, and that they are sheep, gullible and blind consumers until they do so in a satifactory manner. When you first started firing out accusations that nobody knew what they were talking about, the discussion was still young and I can't see why anybody would have felt the need to substantiate their claims, considering most comments were simple tributes or brief expressions of admiration. You say that "Even the person who posted about having worked for him could not substantiate ANYTHING about his supposed great deeds", but that person was never directly asked to prove anything, so your assumption that they cannot substantiate their claims is simply that - an assumption. Perhaps this person (like many others I imagine) only wanted to pay tribute to somebody they admired and leave it at that, and didn't have the time or inclination to put together an essay to prove they are not a "sheep". I mean, really who (other than me ) would want to get involved in a discussion where somebody is arguing very authoratively that your opinion renders you gullible until you can definitively prove otherwise?

Yep, why not?

Whenever people admire a hero/celeb they are in danger of being sucked in. Nobody likes facing up to the fact that their hero is not as heroic as they believed him to be, but is that healthy?

So, anyone who blindly follows a hero and parttakes in the mass hysteria surrouding a hero, is a sheep. That's the definition of a sheep - a blind follower. So the only thing that distinguished a sheep from a non-sheep is the 'blind' part. And all I was doing was getting people to question their blind faith in the man, which (as is evident from the dire lack of any factual information) is based purely on PR and media hype.

But I think this works two ways. While you are censuring people about failing to provide evidence that he has done any good, you have also failed to provide evidence that any of the claims anyone here has made are untrue. Most of those who have made claims of his good work have only posted briefly, just leaving simple tributes and not actually trying to provide any detail as to why they feel that way. Many who have engaged in the argument FOR Steve Irwin have simply been arguing that he was a good man and deserved respect at least for his most commonly known achievements, and that the negativity was not called for. Twice now I have posted well known FACTS that could serve as sole justifications for many of these comments (his privately owned conservation based zoo, his wildlife hospital, Wildlife Warriors). I would think knowledge of these FACTS, which were widely known before his death and all the recent media hype, would be a fairly sound basis on which to decide that Steve Irwin was probably generous, kind, passionate about wildlife, making an effort at conservation, etc. My point is, these things alone could have accounted for most of "claims" in this thread, and these are FACTS that many people have had access to for years. So to claim that nobody here knows anything about about him and their opinions are based only on media hype and PR - without actually indicating any specific claims that can't be accounted for through accurate common knowledge - is a huge, broad sweeping asssumption, is it not?

As an aside, I'm not sure if your chosen method of "getting people to question their blind faith in the man" will be very effective, given that it seems to rely heavily on condescending remarks about their gullibility.

Because no one here (or elsewhere in fact) has been able to post a single simple factoid that could be supported by anything other than media hype and PR. You know, like a simple thing such as a verifying comment from one of the many organisations he is supporting, a controversial article about his land purchases to show they exist, well, anything really that doesn't come from one of his employers, employees or politicians.

As indicated previously, just because no one HAS does not mean no one CAN. No single person has been asked directly to provide any evidence for any specific fact, so there has been no single instance of somebody failing to support any specific claim. Most probably don't feel the need to justify their opinions with suitable evidence, and quite possibly some feel intimidated by the authoritative manner with which you are asserting your convictions, and would rather not get involved. You have not actually misproven any claims, you have simply taken the absence of hard evidence as an indication that nobody has any, and continually assserted this idea as if it were absolute.

I am a perfect example of the flaw in this notion. Being an animal enthusiast and student in a related field, I know quite a bit about what Steve Irwin has done. But initially, I didn't really want to get too heavily involved in the discussion, preferring only to make a brief comment. It wasn't until reading through pages and pages of people (not directly indicating you) making "unsubstantiated claims" about the validity of Steve's conservation work that I felt the need to say something, and by that stage I felt as though my previous lack of substantial evidence had lead me to be lumped in with everybody else as a drone/sheep/blind consumer/gullible, which I knew to be untrue. Even then, it took me several days to get around to actually addressing the many comments that bothered me, because I knew it would be a hefty task to articulate all that I was thiking. I imagine at least SOME of the others who initially participated in this thread may have had similar feelings, so it wouldn't surprise me to find that people are just keeping their thoughts to themselves.

I am not sure where you have come to the conclusion that simply owning a zoo is a conservation effort in itself. Most conservationists would not agree. In fact, many zoos do exactly the opposite of conservation.

Well I guess Australia Zoo is not just any Zoo, and I'm sure many people are aware of at least some of their achievements. The zoo is based around conservation and eco friendly practices. The 250 acre area is important for it's habitat and wildlife status, being the last stronghold for many species of birds, insects, reptiles, mammals and amphibians, and being home to threatened flora species, old growth forest and buch corridors. There have been vast native reforestation efforts within the area, and surrounding land is always being taken up as it becomes available. The zoo has established breeding programs for many endangered species, and is conducting and supporting research into various wildlife and habitat related projects. They also rescue, treat and rehabilitate injured and stranded animals. So anybody who knows anything about Australia Zoo has good reason to respect it's owners for their efforts.

The wildlife hopsital is a great idea, no matter what the motives etc. However, 2million dollars from the government goes a long way towards it and it is after all a major tourist attraction in itself further enriching him. Just so we are clear, I don't care if he makes money on it etc. But I do care if people claim it to be a great act of benevolence if it could just as well be nothing more than an act of capitalism.

Forgive me if I'm being overly naive, but when I see somebody who has worked with animals their entire life (for many many years before becoming famous and wealthy), who has organised, funded and supported countless non profit conservation projects, whose every word and action expresses a profound passion for animals and the environment, who then establishes a NON PROFIT 24 hour wildlife hospital and rescue service like no other in Australia - I tend to think there is some benevolence going on in there somewhere! Perhaps I am just a poor judge of character due to my apparent lack of inherent cynicism, but I have personally seen more than enough evidence to believe the generosity and kindness shown by Steve Irwin was entirely genuine. And my opinion was developed based on what I know, not on media hype surrounding his death.

As for the 2 million dollar government grant you keep mentioning, I imagine that doesn't go a long way in the scheme of things for a facility which makes no profit and has expenses in excess of 1 million dollars annually. The government grant was given to help cover extensions and improvements to the rapidly growing facility. And who wouldn't except a goverment grant for such a wonderful cause?

As for wildlife warriors.... I have seen more conservation scams than real conservation efforts, so I am a little sceptical with these sorts of trusts. Many are merely set up as tax write offs to allow the beneficiaries to travel etc for free. Even though the website is impressive, when it comes down to it there are really only 2 projects on there. The african one makes no mention of his generosity even though it lists virtually every other donation. The asian one only mentions the help he provided via australia zoo - ie indicating an exchange, breeding or veterinary program, rather than field conservation as claimed on the wildlife warriors website. If eithe rone of these projects ahd mentioned him in a greater capacity I would not have doubted the great work he is supposed to have done, but when the only evidence available is in clear contradiction of the PR then a reasonably smart person has reason to question the whole PR image.

I'm not sure why, but you and I seem to be getting completely different information out of the same site/s (perhaps this is due to different research methods, who knows). I have found many more than two projects that Wildlife Warriors are involved in. For starters, they are intertwined with Australia Zoo and the Wildlife Hospital, both of which I have already elaborated on. They are working on education campaigns. They are working with "voiceless" to establish regulations that minimise the impact of land clearing on wildlife. They are working on research projects involving crocodiles, koalas and Tasmanian devils. They are constantly involved in fund raisers for wildlife related projects. The De Wildt's Cheetah fund listed Australia Zoo (which is in collaboration with Wildlife Warriors) as a sponsor, just the same way it mentions other sponsors. I didn't see a great amount of detail on the site regarding any other associated organisations either, but I'm sure they recieve different levels of charity from various sponsors, so obviously this is normal. It's no surprise that they didn't mention Steve Irwin's name, because the organisation now runs independantly of him, apart from administration costs covered by Australia Zoo.

As for Tiger conservation, the Wildlife Warriors have been supporting FFI's Tiger Conservation and Protection Units, providing financial assistance, vehicles, equipment and vetinary field packs to support anti-poaching patrols. They also sent their leading vet to Sumatra to conduct workshops on vetinary treatment for tigers, and have since established education programs. There are many more aspects to the tiger conservation efforts, and they're all there on the website, complete with photographs of participants.

So, yes, I would think that if he has doen all these things then he is definitely worth the admiration he has been given. But my point all along has been that NO ONE here has offered aany evidence whatsoever and hence no one here actually knows anything. The only things we KNOW are that he stocked his zoo with rescued animals and that he provided zoo based help for the tiger project (which may be as little as boarding some animals at the zoo). That is all we actually KNOW. Everything else we have been told by PR. And THAT is my point.

No, those are the only things YOU know, and even then they're not entirely accurate. Looking at the lengths I've had to go to just to attempt to convince you the guy has genuinely done some good things, it's little wonder nobody else has really bothered trying so far!

But no one is actually thinking indepedently of the PR!!!! You just don't get it. Until you have actually verified a piece of PR it is only PR and not independent fact. And hence it is blind consumerism

Again, you are TELLING people as a mass what they are thinking, rather than ASKING them individually where their opinions stem from. I would think this probably puts people on the defensive and probably leaves them reluctant to engage in the discussion, particularly since some people are not as confident in articulating their view as others. With the trend towards a "guilty until proven innocent" approach, I feel this has almost become a battle to regain automatically removed dignity rather than a discussion.

I am not trying to prove anything. I am trying to get people to question for themselves. As a free thinking individual I would hate to find out in 2 months or so that Steve in fact lied about all the overseas conservation work. It's not like it is a rare occurrence for celebs to lie and PR to deceive. So, by believeing everything he says wihtout ever questioning anything no one knows what the truth is. And that's the situationw e are at right now. So far no one here has been able to actually post a single fact about anything re Steve's benevolence/generosity. The only two facts here are what I posted and they are not quite in line with the PR. So yes, if absolutely nothing can be verified then you are indeed gullible (regardless of whether it turns out to be true or not).

I think it's a little patronising to assume that nobody can question for themselves and that they need to be criticised into finding the truth by you. As I implied previously, it's not exactly a secret that Steve Irwin was involved in some conservation work with his Zoo, hospital and Wildlife Warriors, which have all turned out to be legitimate causes with great ambitions in conservation. If these facts alone were known to most of the people who commented here - and that wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination - then the positive attitudes diplayed here would be entirely justified and formed independantly of media hype. The fact that I'm the only person who cared to "prove" why I respect Steve Irwin is not necessarily an indication that I'm the only one who wasn't brainwashed by the media.

Please point out where I have been careless. Half the things you accused me of above were things I did not say, and the other half were things related to the fact that no one here knows anything (myself included) and most don't seem to mind (myself not included).

I was referring specifically to this comment:

"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."

My point was that you made an unsubstantiated claim yourself by asserting that Irwin had not put his land into trusts or put conservation caveats on it, when you didn't actually know whether that was true or not. I don't think I have accused you of anything you did not say (please correct me if I'm wrong), but there may have been some instances where my words were misconstrued as such, or I misinterpreted yours. And again, the "fact" that nobody here knows anything is still no more than an assumption.

Edited September 10, 2006 by mycomorphosis

[mycomorphosis]

So, horray, we have one Irwin fan who actually knew what he was on about.

Oh, and that's actually one Irwin fan who knew what SHE was on about.

[wandjina]

BRAVO Mycomorphosis!!!!

You have articulated so much of what I would have said if I had had the juice, and the courage, to do so.

A big button pusher for me is being patronised and condescended to, especially on the basis of an insubstantial and unneccesarily acerbic argument. I was avoiding jumping in any more because I knew I'd get attacked, and then I'd want to bite back....then it just gets silly, and i get the shits....etc etc

Anyhoo, at the risk of being unpopular, I have to say I reckon Myco is spot on, and has expressed many things I'm certain other members have thought and felt.

None of us here are ultimate authorities or experts...on anything. I know i cringe at re-reading some of my posts....how arrogant i can be! But at least I can own it...some ofthe time at least.

I have to say i've been really dissappointed and annoyed by the way you've argued your case in this instance Torsten...I feel you have shown alot of disrespect not just towards Irwin, but to numerous forum members, and to be perfectly honest I have lost some respect for you and the lengths you seem prepared to go to to win an argument.

I'm not making this personal....you've already taken it there.

Sorry T, but you can be real mean sometimes, and it makes me sad and shitty in equal measure.

[shaman]

That is un Australian , Torsten don't get me wrong I dont beleive this man was perfect no-one is we all have faults and weaknesses but what I am saying is that Steve Irwin regardless of what he actually did or didn;t do made a success of himself. I visited both his parents and his own zoos?and Steve just had it, He went beyond to make a visit to his zoo esp 4 children a memorable one where they had fun and did learn about nature - my kids are testament to this!!

i hear you mate.

he was a real aussie bloke, top guy

r.i.p

[incognito]

for sure mate,

i do think this whole thing couldve been treated alot more tentatively.

Aint no doubt that steve loved animals and that his intentions where pure.

If we could all do as much for nature as what steve had(and will continue to do), this worlds fauna would breathe alot easier.

Weve lost a great australian, regardless of what anyone says , steve WILL be remembered as a great family man, conservationist and public educator.

Edited September 10, 2006 by jono

[in_spirit]

Bravo to all of you, wandjina & mycomorphosis and everyone else who defies Torstens anti PR brainwashing methods, LOL. For mindless sheep we argue the same point in many ways with a diversity of words that most sheep, unless i am mistaken do not use. We must be the odd sheep, dont you think?? Black sheep and this black sheep doesn't watch TV, but does listen to a bit of radio where it can be received to and from work!!

Edited September 10, 2006 by evil

[Torsten]

However, the fact that you don't care what he does with his money raises another issue. Is it really fair to sledge somebody for accepting funds if you are not willing to consider what they may have been using those funds for?

Good point.

I was really only using the 150K AQIS fee as an indicator of his MO. Please keep in mind that I knew virtually nothing about the guy before this thread started. In my search for verifiable information I did not find much that wasn't on their own sites (which were mostly down anyway). That was why I asked for facts fand information from people.

The efforts of the Christian missionaries are simply not comparable, so I don't believe that is a suitable analogy.

I wasn't comparing what anyone did. I was questioning your statement that intention is enough to deserve credit. Obviously for the purpose of making the point I had to use an extreme example. I could have also used Margret Stanton's dietary advice or Amanda vanstone's refugee policy, but that would have left people scratching their heads in confusion

I think this is merely a matter of opinion, and I'm not sure what makes yours any more righteous than anybody else's. There are a great many people who would argue that Steve Irwin is a perfect candidate for a state funeral

Yes, that is just my opinion. I am sure there are others too who feel that way, but I am sure they are the minority. I did not claim that my opinion is in any way superior. I just wanted that people form an opinion on the basis of knowledge and facts, not PR and hype.

I don't think that puts you in a position to insist that the alternative perspective is irrational and requires a reality check.

It's not the alternative eprspective I have a problem with, it was the blind faith. Anyone I have talked to about this topic the last few days did not know anything about Steve. They all just loved him because he was an entertainer. And I don't think that deserves a state funeral. This total lack of knowledge about this person was mirrored on these forums, so I had no reason to believe that anyone knew anything other than the PR. And I did ask for it POLITELY at the time!!

See, I don't get why you feel people should have to provide substantial evidence to support their OPINIONS of a person, and that they are sheep, gullible and blind consumers until they do so in a satifactory manner.

People ARE sheep if they believe whatever they are told without questioning. So, if people claim not to b sheep then I would hope they would bring forward tidbits of what they know to show they have an informed opinion. And while 'support in a satisfactory manner' sounds rather harsh, in reality all that was needed was a snippet of ANYTHING. I mean have a look back through this thread and you will see the dire lack of information and the constant regurgitation of PR.

Then have a look at the little bit of actual info you provided and how easily I changed my mind. That's all it took.

When you first started firing out accusations that nobody knew what they were talking about, the discussion was still young and I can't see why anybody would have felt the need to substantiate their claims

Long before any accusations I asked in post #17:

"Please remind us! Just how has he helped australian wildlife other than for his own profit?

I am not having a go at him here, as I really don't know." I wasn't being hostile or condescending, in fact I was asking for information. It would have been nice for someone to provide it THEN.

You say that "Even the person who posted about having worked for him could not substantiate ANYTHING about his supposed great deeds", but that person was never directly asked to prove anything

Gollum posted this directly after my question, giving the indication that this is the actual depth of knowledge he had about his work.

I mean, really who (other than me ) would want to get involved in a discussion where somebody is arguing very authoratively that your opinion renders you gullible until you can definitively prove otherwise?

actually plenty of folks felt it neccessary to argue *all sorts* of points. The only one that was sadly not presented was some fact here or there.

But I think this works two ways. While you are censuring people about failing to provide evidence that he has done any good, you have also failed to provide evidence that any of the claims anyone here has made are untrue.

I have asked for evidence and I have presented whatever I could find myself. Once you have a set of evidence everyone can form an informed opionion. Maybe I made a mistake in assuming that my asking for facts and not receiving any indicated lack of knowledge rather than lack of desire to post, but my off line experience on this issue indicates that's not the case. Seriously, we are at the end of page 5 of this thread and we now have 2 posts with facts in them, but pages and pages of regurgitated PR.

You also said that I needed to provide evidence to contradict the statements made by others. Why? It doesn't matter whether statements are true or not. It is the way people arrive at the statement which matters. It's a little hard to explain and I don't want to offend anyone anymore, but imagine this:

We get fed a whole load of PR about a person (eg a politician). Everyone laps it up. No one questions it. Now, in what way does it matter to the gullibility factor of the people whether the PR turns out to be true or false? If no one questioned any of the PR and goes to spread it or acts on it, then it is immaterial if the PR was correct or not.

So, if folks here know heaps about Steve, and just didn't say anything because they wanted to see me argue myself into a corner , then that's fine and I am happy to have obliged. But if folks here really did not KNOW anything about Steve, then they should be honest with themselves and have a good think about how dangerous such a process is and how easily they are sucked in. I know from private conversations here that many really did not know anything and I hope that rather than being offended they make sure it doesn't happen again. There might be others who are well informed and totally offended by my comments and I am sure they will be aware enough to realise the sheep label doesn't apply to them and hence they should not be offended

Most of those who have made claims of his good work have only posted briefly, just leaving simple tributes and not actually trying to provide any detail as to why they feel that way.

Hmmm, surely you have read beyond page 1! That statement just doesn't apply to the latter pages.

Twice now I have posted well known FACTS that could serve as sole justifications for many of these comments (his privately owned conservation based zoo, his wildlife hospital, Wildlife Warriors). I would think knowledge of these FACTS, which were widely known before his death and all the recent media hype, would be a fairly sound basis on which to decide that Steve Irwin was probably generous, kind, passionate about wildlife, making an effort at conservation, etc. My point is, these things alone could have accounted for most of "claims" in this thread

And my point is that their mere existence does not. I have never been to the zoo, but the mere existence of a zoo does not idicate any of those things. Ditto for the trust fund. Without actual achievements they are empty promises. That's why I was asking for some indication of what people knew about these operations and whether they were in fact used for good, bad or neither.

I intentionally left the hopsital out of this equation because it wuld be pretty hard for a hospital to do bad things

So to claim that nobody here knows anything about about him and their opinions are based only on media hype and PR - without actually indicating any specific claims that can't be accounted for through accurate common knowledge - is a huge, broad sweeping asssumption, is it not?

As I said above, the existence of these thigns is meaningless unless they have achievements to their credit. All I was asking for was some facts about such achievements.

As an aside, I'm not sure if your chosen method of "getting people to question their blind faith in the man" will be very effective, given that it seems to rely heavily on condescending remarks about their gullibility.

I presume it isn't effective either, but hey, I tried. Apparently (according to your previous post) good intention is all it takes, regardless of method and outcome

As indicated previously, just because no one HAS does not mean no one CAN.

yes, I realise that now. usually people are more forthcoming in supporting their stance with evidence, especially when it is exactly that evidence which is being asked for.

No single person has been asked directly to provide any evidence for any specific fact

Actually, I painstakingly posted all my replies as direct statements to someone else's post rather than the many generalisatiosn that were ebign made by others. If you check around page 4 I was actually complaining about how so many comments were being lumped together and one never knows who is commenting on who's post. So, I would be surprised if I was guilty of doing the same thing, but I really don't feel like reading the 5 pages *again*.

and quite possibly some feel intimidated by the authoritative manner with which you are asserting your convictions

I had no convictions re Steve until about page 3, and even then they wereon rather shaky ground.

I am a perfect example of the flaw in this notion.

yes, but you are also so far the only one. As I said above, nothing would please me more than to find that everyone was just playing me along and in fact you folks have all the hard facts neatly sorted in your brains. .....but if you don't then have another look at the picture.

I imagine at least SOME of the others who initially participated in this thread may have had similar feelings, so it wouldn't surprise me to find that people are just keeping their thoughts to themselves.

I hope so.

Well I guess Australia Zoo is not just any Zoo, and I'm sure many people are aware of at least some of their achievements. The zoo is based around conservation and eco friendly practices. The 250 acre area is important for it's habitat and wildlife status, being the last stronghold for many species of birds, insects, reptiles, mammals and amphibians, and being home to threatened flora species, old growth forest and buch corridors.

Good to hear. More juicy facts. Keep them coming. I am beginning to like this guy

(as I said, I've never been there and I would presume neither have many others here).

Forgive me if I'm being overly naive, but when I see somebody who has worked with animals their entire life (for many many years before becoming famous and wealthy), who has organised, funded and supported countless non profit conservation projects, whose every word and action expresses a profound passion for animals and the environment, who then establishes a NON PROFIT 24 hour wildlife hospital and rescue service like no other in Australia - I tend to think there is some benevolence going on in there somewhere!

yes, I have given him the benefit of the doubt on this issue all along.

thanks for all the other facts too.

I'm not sure why, but you and I seem to be getting completely different information out of the same site/s (perhaps this is due to different research methods, who knows). I have found many more than two projects that Wildlife Warriors are involved in.

Didn't I say 2 INTERNATIONAL projects? Pretty sure I did, but if I didn't then that's what I meant and would like to note that.

The De Wildt's Cheetah fund listed Australia Zoo (which is in collaboration with Wildlife Warriors) as a sponsor, just the same way it mentions other sponsors.

OK, I browsed and searched the whole site and did not find any reference to Australia Zoo or any other Irwin entity (as previously stated). I would have loved for you to point this out at the time when I made that comment. Our of curiosity, could you please point me to the page.

I didn't see a great amount of detail on the site regarding any other associated organisations either

There's a big sponsor page with about 20 sponsors.

As for Tiger conservation, the Wildlife Warriors have been supporting FFI's Tiger Conservation and Protection Units, providing financial assistance, vehicles, equipment and vetinary field packs to support anti-poaching patrols.

you see, I read all that, but all it said was that FFI was doing this stuff, with no reference to WW. The WW page even goes as far as tabling expenses per crew and per vehicle etc, but they don't actually say who pays for this.

No, those are the only things YOU know, and even then they're not entirely accurate. Looking at the lengths I've had to go to just to attempt to convince you the guy has genuinely done some good things, it's little wonder nobody else has really bothered trying so far!

LOL, it hasn't been that hard surely. I mean, I was convinced with your first post on this page.

I think it's a little patronising to assume that nobody can question for themselves and that they need to be criticised into finding the truth by you.

Polls and elections tel us that most people do not seek facts before making up their minds. Just think WMDs, refugees, interest rates, etc. Poeple ARE by and large gullible and uninformed. The folks on this forum much less so, but we're not perfect either.

I was referring specifically to this comment:

"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."

My point was that you made an unsubstantiated claim yourself by asserting that Irwin had not put his land into trusts or put conservation caveats on it, when you didn't actually know whether that was true or not.

Very true. I am a little shocked by this actually. I did not think I made that assumption. In fact I did NOT make that assumption, but somehow I wrote it like that. mea culpa.

I don't think I have accused you of anything you did not say (please correct me if I'm wrong), but there may have been some instances where my words were misconstrued as such, or I misinterpreted yours.

There's a fine line between making a false accusation and simply misinterpreting something and it would be futile to dwell on that. I am just very happy that someone finally took up the challenge and presented some facts about Steve. THANKS.

[Torsten]

You have articulated so much of what I would have said if I had had the juice, and the courage, to do so.

A big button pusher for me is being patronised and condescended to, especially on the basis of an insubstantial and unneccesarily acerbic argument. I was avoiding jumping in any more because I knew I'd get attacked, and then I'd want to bite back....then it just gets silly, and i get the shits....etc etc

I was actually curious why you in particular (as a scientist) accepted hearsay without any proof? When I asked for facts you provided a friend's opinion. Maybe you did know a lot more about Steve, but you did not let on and as myco pointed out I may have been mistaken in my assumption of equating lack of posted facts with lack of known facts.

Anyhoo, at the risk of being unpopular, I have to say I reckon Myco is spot on, and has expressed many things I'm certain other members have thought and felt.

Hang on! Did you just play the 'underdog card'? Last I checked the Steve lovers were still in the majority

I have to say i've been really dissappointed and annoyed by the way you've argued your case in this instance Torsten.

well, I've been extremely frustrated about the way this progressed too. Nothing more disappointing than becoming disillusioned .

I feel you have shown alot of disrespect not just towards Irwin

Ummm, please show me one post where I have said anything bad about him!?! I had no opinion about him, so how could i have made any posts that said anything bad? (please ignore the one myco pointed out because that was never intentioned to be written that way and the rest of my posts should be a good indicator of that).

but to numerous forum members, and to be perfectly honest I have lost some respect for you and the lengths you seem prepared to go to to win an argument.

What's the argument we are talking about here? if you mean the one about Irwin then please check again, because I have no argument about him. I was asking questions, did some research, presented what I found and asked for more facts. If I have no opinion then how can I argue one? (the only argument I may have presented about him is about his controversial conservation methods and I think that is a fair argument that will probably continue for some time to come - and not just by me).

So, that only leaves my statements about gullibility. I am not sure what you mean by the 'lengths' I am apparently prepared to go to to win this one. There is no winning. If I won this argument I would have to close these forums because it would mean that there are only sheep here and I am wasting my time.

So obviously this is an argument I want to lose, but so far only myco has taken up the challenge and I thank HER for that .

Let's not forget we are now on page 6 and only one person has posted facts about Irwin. Do you really think he would want this life celebrated as a response to his celeb status? Don't you think he would much rather people actually KNEW details about all the good work he has done? How can you pay *respects* on the basis of PR? Respect doesn't come from PR, it comes from actions. So doesn't everyone who respects Irwin owe him to know at least one fact about his work? Would that be asking too much?

I'm not making this personal....you've already taken it there.

Good. I dislike the impersonal nature of forums, so at least i succeeded in overcoming that

Sorry T, but you can be real mean sometimes, and it makes me sad and shitty in equal measure.

awww, c'mon, it's only a discussion . All you had to do was point out how wrong I was by posting a little fact and you would have had the pleasure of my admiration

[in_spirit]

Let's not forget we are now on page 6 and only one person has posted facts about Irwin. Do you really think he would want this life celebrated as a response to his celeb status? Don't you think he would much rather people actually KNEW details about all the good work he has done? How can you pay *respects* on the basis of PR? Respect doesn't come from PR, it comes from actions. So doesn't everyone who respects Irwin owe him to know at least one fact about his work? Would that be asking too much?

Fact #1 : Steve Irwin champion

Fact #2 : I dont think it would matter what proof was turned up it would be a part of the media PR for Steve Irwin and if it wasn't it would become so with this forum. I love to see Australia read this. ggoglebot????????

As for respect it is from jis actions that i givehim respect no PR. Dowever it is for you to prove otherwise. I respect hom enough not to doubtand therefor have to prove to you or anyone else.................

Edited September 10, 2006 by evil

[Shroom-Aura]

i cant beleive what some people here are saying! steve irwin had a spontaneous and enthusiastic personality that obviously doesnt appeal to everyone some would interpret it as stupidity. and i think that he can come off a bit cocky at times (like most aussies). but unlike most aussies he was genuine, he seemed to act and think completely naturually and didnt care what other people thought, which to me is admirable in our society.

so what if he made lots of money as a celebrity? so what if he didnt do any actual conservation?

when you die would you want some asshole saying what should or shouldnt of done in your life? you probably wouldnt care, coz ud be dead and in a higher plane of existence but what is point of judging the descisions he made in his life? doing so will not be doing anyone wrong except yourself.

seriously though when a non celebrity dies do all the people they knew talk so much shit about them? I dont think it's right even if they were a very bad person. i think that people are just jealous of people who have lots of money which is sad.

and i dont think 'his life should be celebrated' (whatever that means im not sure) but his death should be mourned (if you have anything positive to say otherwise it should wait untill not after his imininent death at leat). anyway enough pointless ranting, here is my respects to steve:

You were an aussie legend! A unique character with an explosive passion and unparalleled enthusiasm. I've always been inspired by the energry and genuine enjoyment that is seen when you work. From when i was a kid you're show had always been on tv (~10 years?), it had an influence on me, its hard to imagine that you are now not on this Earth. RIP mate

edit - all the people that didnt take this opportunity to shit on steve I propel some positive vibes in your general directions!

Edited September 10, 2006 by Trich-Aura