Crocodile Hunter - Steve Irwin is Dead

What I find SADDEST of all of this... Is that.. Steve Irwin dies.. people give him praise.. and they are critcised for it.. Peter Brock dies and he's highly praised...without any crticism.. Now.. dont take that wrong, Brockie was an amazing driver and a legend on the track... and he'll be missed.. And yeah he promoted great road safety... But what do you think Steve did? He promoted wild animal safety..he educated us on what these dangerous animals are, what they looked like, hey they attacked and what they were capable of..

Dont ridicule me for giving someone praise.... I'm sure Germaine Greer has NOTHING to say about Peter Brock...

And.. I dont read the Herald.. considering I live in the USA.. my subscription doesnt deliver here....

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Ox]

Saddened by his dead

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
This guy made the study and preservation of animals interesting again.

Maybe for you, but I remember a guy named Harry Butler, who made the study and knowledge of Australian fauna interesting to me, just as David Attenborough did it for the rest of the world.

I've been watching Steve Irwin's antics for years now, wondering when he was going to die. I grew up in the bush and all I can say is Steve is (or was) a text-book example of exactly what not to do with things such as red-bellied blacks and King Browns.

Thank you Trey Parker and Matt Stone for puncturing this image before it became too late. Now everyone will scream "You can't speak ill of the dead." I can and will.

Steve Irwin was an idiot who showed no respect for the deadly (9 of the world's 10 most venemous snakes are found in Oz) things he was holding and coupled with his incredibly annoying catchcry he was radically mis-educating an entire generation of kids.

He will not be missed in my household.

Any moron who holds a venemous snake by its tail and tells the audience that its angry now while waving it about deserves nothing less than to be bitten and die on camera.

Remember, this is the idiot that carried his infant into a crocodile pen.

Not showing respect? What the hell are you smoking?

He did show respect, he didn't use tranq on Crocs, that can easily kill them, as for holding a snake by it's tale, he only did it by himself and when he said they were really angry, he almost always walked away.
The baby thing wasn't as dangerous as publicised.

If you die I won't care because you show no respect to people who've given there lives to animals.

I found him as a nice person, who put his own life at risk rescuing animals. Some of the things he did were stupid, but he made us respect the animals while making it fun to watch. Seriously, do you think most people will watch a boring Doco about Crocs, or rather watch Steve educate us while making it fun to watch?

[edit on 12-9-2006 by PisTonZOR]

Steve took risks yes, but he was a professional who knew his work.... Just like a Pilot knows how to fly, Steve knew how to handle dangerous animals... I couldnt fly a plane, nor handle the animals Steve did, but that's not my job..
Sadly there have been reports by Wildlife Rangers in Australia that there have been more than 10 dead Stingrays found mutilated, probably killed by people... Ignorant people..

Ox, I think you've raised a very interesting point.

I think you've defined CONTROVERSIAL.

Brocky, or those that wish to pay him tribute are not being criticised because there was nothing controversial about his methods.

There can be no doubt that Steve Irwin's methods were certainly controversial - if you don't think so then you have not been reading this forum. And perhaps thats what frustrates some of the others contibuting - many of you cannot, or will not, see that the image that Irwin portrayed WAS controversial.

Your analogy with a pilot is also interesting. If a pilot uses procedures that are out of the main stream or deemed controversial and then dies in an aviation incident then it will be absolutely certain that the pilot will be condemned for his/her practices and 'disregard' for procedures. And if a member of your family or mine were killed in that incident then we would be the first to condemn. Whether a person is 'a great bloke' or not actually has no bearing whether they could be considered reckless and a bad example to the public.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Adolf Hitler was kind to his dogs and was a loving partner to Eva Braun - doesn't change what he did though.

[edit on 12/9/06 by The Winged Wombat]

But my opinion and yours Wombat are going to differ.. Everyone's is... I dont think Steve was reckless, I think his methods were his own. He got up close and personal with some very dangerous creatures, If you want to call that controversial ok, I'd call it Steve's method.. Everyone has their own method. And even other Zoologists have said that this is a "Fluke accident" "One in a million"..

I could argue the same thing about Brockie.. He had his method of driving, Was it reckless? or was it just the nature of the job? Racing at 200 plus kilometers an hour around tracks could be considered reckless.. Dont you think? I know all the safety gear installed in the vehicles helps but, it didnt save his life... Now to compare... Was it a freak accident that Brockie died? Or was he being Controversial and reckless?

All sports and much of human endeavour is dangerous, Experience has taught us that if we apply certain procedures, practices and standards to those things then we can minimise the danger - but you can't totally eliminate the danger (indeed in sport if we totally eliminate the dangers then often the sport no longer has any meaning or interest - down-hill skiing without the hill?)

Obviously, the officials involved in the standards and practices of motorsport and those that are required to come up with some expanation for people's deaths will examine all the data available and reach a conclusion. Without pre-empting those people, I think that in Brocky's case it might well come down to Brocky having made a mistake. Fair enough - we are all human. However, had Brocky operated outside the accepted practices and safety standards of motorsport, then there would be criticism of him and his practices and quite rightly so, because he was (in part) a model held up for safe and sober driving. Of course, if he is found to have been under the influence of alcohol, then there will be heaps of criticism and quite rightly so.

Equally, Irwin is open to criticism (whether dead or alive) for operating outside the accepted standards when dealing with dangerous animals. That it was entertaining for some is beyond doubt, but that still doesn't make it a good example. To put it another way - if Steve Irwin had done everything he did without a TV show then you could say that he was just an individual doing his thing, but by putting his antics before the public as a visible example of how to behave around dangerous animals, then you enter a quite different world of responsibilty. There is a quite different perception of, say Sir Richard Branson (an 'adventurer') wrestling a crocodile and Steve Irwin (animal expert) wrestling a crocodile - a different level of responsibilty if you like.

I don't know how up to date you are on football in Australia, but there has recently been a number of players suspended or sacked because of drunken behaviour. The major problem here is that the teams for which they play are sponsored by organisations against drink-driving. So while their behaviour may be viewed in a very human way, they cannot afford such human traits because they publically represent the counter view, whether they like it or not.

The fact of the matter is that because of their public personas they influence public opinion with their behaviour.

Yes, Steve Irwin's death could be described as a freak accident, but if you continue to minimise the safety margins when dealing with dangerous situations (and I don't know if this was the case - and presumably neither does anyone else here), then the odds get rather nasty. To be stuck by a stingray while innocently swimming about could be described as a freak accident, I'm not at all sure that the same could be said of deliberately swimming in close proximity to a stingray for the camera.

Just as Brocky's death should not be included within normal road accident statistics (because of the nature of the event), then Steve Irwin's death cannot be included in the statistics regarding death by stingray barb, and equally the stats relating to both events (running off that particular part of road, or stingray caused deaths) cannot be applied to the situations.

[edit on 12/9/06 by The Winged Wombat]

The point I am trying to make is that Steve's death was an accident, albeit a tragic one it was still just an accident.. What measures could he have taken? Steve knew about Stingrays and how placid they usually are.. And I'm sure had he finished the segment he would have said something about the barb on their tails.. Thats all Im saying, is that it was a 1 in a million fluke accident and there was probably no chance of preventing it.. Apart from not going in the water at all

Well Ox, he could have been further away from the stingray, couldn't he. I guess this is why there has been a suggestion that he was outside his knowledge zone.

If you deliberately put yourself in a dangerous situation and it all goes wrong, is that an accident ? Or just an error of judgement.

If you deliberately swim in close proximity to a stingray then '1 in a million' no longer applies.


[edit on 12/9/06 by The Winged Wombat]

Well, I could say the same thing about Brockie.. he put himself in a dangerous situation, racing in a rally. He deliberately put himself in the driver's seat of that car, and had his foot deliberately on the accelerator and was deliberately putting the car into a pendulum swing to take the corners at maximum speed... and died doing so... if he wasnt going so fast he probably would have survived the impact? agreed? If Steve hadnt have gotten so close he would have probably not gotten hit with the tail barb...

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Maybe for you, but I remember a guy named Harry Butler, who made the study and knowledge of Australian fauna interesting to me, just as David Attenborough did it for the rest of the world.

I've been watching Steve Irwin's antics for years now, wondering when he was going to die. I grew up in the bush and all I can say is Steve is (or was) a text-book example of exactly what not to do with things such as red-bellied blacks and King Browns.

Thank you Trey Parker and Matt Stone for puncturing this image before it became too late. Now everyone will scream "You can't speak ill of the dead." I can and will.

Steve Irwin was an idiot who showed no respect for the deadly (9 of the world's 10 most venemous snakes are found in Oz) things he was holding and coupled with his incredibly annoying catchcry he was radically mis-educating an entire generation of kids.

He will not be missed in my household.

Any moron who holds a venemous snake by its tail and tells the audience that its angry now while waving it about deserves nothing less than to be bitten and die on camera.

Remember, this is the idiot that carried his infant into a crocodile pen.

I also grew up in the outback, northwest of alice springs on what used to be my grandfathers cattle station in the macdonnell ranges (it is now a national park). we had a Csiro guy come out regularly to pick up any interesting or venemous animals that we had caught, we would also take him out spotlighting with us to catch venemous snakes.
He used the same procedure to catch and bag the snakes as Steve Irwin did, this guy did it for a living not for T.V camera's, so tell me was this guy (a scientist) also a moron according to you. Now the King Brown is definately a dangerous bugger but Red Belly Blacks we used to catch all the time (in the A.C.T), even though they are venemous and still potentially dangerous i dont believe that they are responsible for many deaths, if any at all.
Having seen first hand how both my Grandfather and a csiro scientist, herpetologist handled snakes then i do believe he was showing them the respect they deserved, that cant be said about some other peoples views on a recently deceased person who truly loved animals.
You can speak ill of the dead all you like, doesnt make your opinion any more or less valuable than someone who respected a good aussie bloke, nor does it make Trey Parker and Matt Stone's portrayal anything more than a vehicle for them to achieve some cheap laughs.

I couldn't agree more....

Unless there was a fault in the car, then Brocky made a mistake and suffered the consequences. Then it no longer becomes an accident, but an error of judgement. An accident is something that cannot be forseen, something that occurs due to freak circumstances. There is nothing 'freak' about making a fatal mistake.

Putting yourself in harm's way (applicable to both Peter and Steve) reduces 'accident' in the direction of 'inevitability'

I don't think Steve Irwin ever put himself within reach of a crocodile, so why did he put himself in a situation where a stingray could kill him - error of judgement, lack of knowledge of how lethal a stingray could be?

But the fact remains that he did put himself into a situation from which there was no retreat.

I think Steve added an element that he wasnt used to... that being the water.. on the land we've seen him move quickly and with agility many times.. and Stingrays are typically placid creatures... So is my cat, but when provoked both (Stingrays and my cat) be dangerous... I mean.. I have video of myself scratching a 300lbs Bengal Tiger behind the ears, was this stupid? No.. A risk? Doubtful..But had the Tiger taken my hand off, then would it have been my fault? or an accident.. I would say an accident seeing as the Tiger was hand raised from birth and has been handled and had human interaction since birth.. Accidents happen, call them what you will.. They are still accidents.

And just for the record.. the stingray venom didnt kill Steve.. the fist sized hole the barb punched in his heart did

Would someone please explain to me this BS about not speaking ill of the dead.

Since when did you hear a kind word for Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Ronald Reagan, or Tricky Dicky Nixon, to name but a few.

Just because they are dead doesn't change one iota how people thought about them nor how they are spoken of.

In the last few years there was an Australian Politician who was rorting the system left right and centre and was going to be prosecuted for it. Poor bugger contracted cancer, so they dropped the proceedings. And then he lived on and on and on and on - might still be alive today for all I know - so he got away with it! Just because he was going to die.

I got news for you all out there - we are all going to die, and when we do, it ain't going to make us any more right or wrong than when we were alive.

Ox, it would have been your own fault.

There is plenty of documentation on the unpredictabilty of big cats (even hand reared ones) and the responsibilty would have been both yours and whoever allowed you to do it.

That would not have been an accident, but either an act of ignorance or an error of judgement.

I don't think I mentioned venom, where did that come from?

[edit on 12/9/06 by The Winged Wombat]

And unfortunately this is the result of Steve's death...
News Source

Next thing you know people will be going out and cutting down gum tree's to avenge Brockie...

Ignorant people...

We have agreement, Ox!

The stingray, was after all only doing what stingrays do when they feel threatened. Not sure you can say the same about a tree though.

Upon consideration, I think the tree did do the natural thing - as it turned out Peter's car wasn't much of a threat to the tree. To a lesser tree perhaps, but not that particular one.

[edit on 12/9/06 by The Winged Wombat]

The tree.. then that would have been poor judgement on Brockie's part? or the co-driver?? Too fast? no control over the car? Judgement or accident?

I thought I already covered that....

If there was no failure of the car, then the fault lies elsewhere....

Could be the co-driver/navigator telling the driver the wrong (or optimistic) instructions for the corner, could have been Peter over-estimating the speed that could be safely maintained, could have been something on the road that lessened the traction of the tyres (but for which Peter did not make allowance for - reduced safety margin).

Nonetheless, if no unforseen car failure, then an error of judgement, whichever way you look at it. If however, a tree was struck but lightning and fell on the passing car, then that could be fairly be described as an accident (or an act of God).

Fair enough.. And I see your point..
But cause I'm a last word freak.. I think Steve's death is tragic

I will not deprive you of the last word on the matter, Ox.

Just going back a bit, and as an aside, I think you give Germaine Greer a little too much credence. I'm sure she has plenty to say about people who participate in sports of a dangerous nature. In the Brock instance, nobody has bothered to ask her, probably because there is really no controversy there to exploit. Ultimately, if what she said about Steve Irwin caused offence then who is to blame, Germaine Greer, or the rat-bags that commissioned the article and printed it. One must ask this - If the newspaper wasn't looking for such comments, then why didn't they edit them out or ask someone else to comment.

Comes right back to controversy increasing sales - money, money, money.