It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Crocodile Hunter - Steve Irwin is Dead

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I was only quoting you, Ox.

The same way you were quoting Ms Greer. And you can't say I was taking your comments out of context, now can you.

But here's the rub. You say that Steve Irwin had that croc 'under control'. Mate there is no such thing (as you probably know - that's lion-tamer talk). You, nor I, nor Steve Irwin can have a croc 'under control' - the croc only knows one thing - hey man - food, and in doing so it is one of the few creatures that has survived since the dinosaurs. I've never criticised Irwin about the 'Bob' incident because it was all about camera angles, etc and I just don't have the information to know whether it was dangerous or not.

I'm not suggesting that scenes were set up on the show, but think of it this way. We are talking about television. If Steve's show had been a succession of boring clips of rather inanimate animals, then nobody's going to buy it or watch it. So obviously that is going to influence the way in which the show is edited and also the way in which Steve interacts with the animals. The best effect (both for educational purposes and TV effect) is to get the animal to strike, so you could phrase his actions as 'annoying the animal or backing it into a corner until it strikes back'

I just see the example that he set (as a television performer) as being a poor example for those that do not understand the precautions taken or the knowledge involved in surviving that sort of situation (and really that includes just about anyone who hasn't worked with these animals).

If only one child dies because of the apparent disrespect for danger as depicted on the show, then that's one child too many.

For Steve and his family, yes, I agree that this has been tragic.

I question the use of the word accident about all this though. If you spend your life running back and forwards across a road in front of buses, and eventually get hit by one, is that an accident?

I'm betting the coroner will find 'death by misadventure', which is not the same as 'death by accident' if you get my point.

With regard to how 'hard" one is taking this, I just think that in this world with all its important questions and problems to be solved, I think the public outpouring (here in Australia it rivals that for Princess Diana at the moment) is just way over the top. The suggestion that he should have a State Funeral (asked of a State Premier facing an election this weekend - now that's between a rock and a hard place) is outrageous. I predict, for better or worse, that the public is so fickle (and the media so intent on the next new story), that Steve will be forgotten within 6 months. All it will need is a new attack by a terrorist organisation or for some crackpot to take a shot at George Bush and Steve will be ripped from the headlines to become nothing more than a footnote of Australian history. Sadly, that's the way the world works today - especially the world of television.

Let's be very clear what Steve Irwin represented - he was an entrepreneur, a businessman and an avid conservationist - top stuff, and obviously very very good at it. But he was also a controversial figure who promoted his TV show and got his message across by performing 'stunts' (or if you wish 'putting himself in harm's way'). No more or no less than Eval Keneval.

State Funeral for Eval Keneval - I don't think so

[edit on 6/9/06 by The Winged Wombat]




posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ox
1. Did Steve put his son in danger when feeding the Croc and holding his boy? No I dont believe he did, Steve had complete control of that Croc, it was infront of him and Steve had his team there with him incase something went awry...

I didn't see the footage, but if he took a helpless baby into a crocodile enclosure, then yes, he was putting his boy in danger. As Steve's death has so starkly illustrated, you can NEVER completely anticipate what a wild animal is going to do. If the croc attacked suddenly and Steve had to run, tripped over and the boy fell from his arms, what then? One in a million chance, you say? Well, it's about the same chance as dying from a stingray barb. And he had the "team" there when he died. **** happens, and taking a baby into a crocodile enclosure while you feed the crocs is a stupid publicity stunt.


2. Will Kids mimic Steve's actions? Some may.. But, All Children should be supervised.. Especially if there is an animal around, domestic or otherwise.. I can hardly see some 5 year old in Florida jumping on a Croc's back.. Most kids are afraid of large dogs.. let alone a 1 ton Croc's back...

But it's quite plausible that kids would mimic Steve by coming across a snake and trying to grab it by the tail. You can't supervise children 24/7, but what you can do is try to educate them so they don't get hurt and can look after themselves.

Steve performed some admirable deeds for animal conservation, there's no denying that, but he also made a fortune out of it, and he also did some stupid things, the last of which killed him. He shouldn't be burnt at the proverbial stake for the things he did, he was human just like the rest of us, but just because he died tragically does not make him an infallible saint.

0.02c





[edit on 2006-9-6 by wecomeinpeace]


Ox

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I understand your point.. But I disagree.. I have to. I'm sorry

Are you implying that Steve made the animals strike and what not? I mean.. the Crocs.. yeah he made noise to get them out of the water... Why? In the water, they had the advantage.. on the land.. he had the advantage.. As for the snakes... Snakes strike when they're annoyed.. Especially wild snakes.. I've handled many "pet" snakes and even then a few had struck at me... but not as often as a wild one would when handled..

If this were no accident, it would have happened sooner.. And very well could have happened sooner, but I believe Steve was out of his element in the water.. He didnt have the speed to move in the water as he did on land..

As for the "Bob incident".. and controlling a Croc.. well.. With that I meant.. Steve had the Croc trained on the meat in his hands and I am not referring to the baby.. Steve had a team of people to help if the Croc didnt want to do what it was supposed to.. And.. Im sure Steve had somewhat of a more.. "placid" Croc in the enclosure with him.. I dont believe Bob was in any harm at all..

All I know is that when I learned of Steve's death.. it hit me hard.. Seeing his show let me get a glimpse of back home.. My home.. that I havent seen and I enjoyed that.. Sharing that experience with my wife who has never visited Australia.. and it saddens me that Steve wont be around to educate and entertain my kids..

I believe Steve's death was an accident.. Either way.. it's unfortunate and tragic..



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
One last question, Ox

You say that Steve had the croc fixed on the meat....... what makes you think that the croc would see any difference between the dangled meat, Steve Irwin, or Bob ! The way crocs behave (storing food underwater, etc), it would have all three if it possibly could. Your assumption that the croc would go for the dangled meat is quite false and misleading. They is all food to the croc! There is no such thing as a placid croc - they cannot be trained in any way shape or form.

The reason that I would not necessarily criticise that incident, is, for instance, there may well have been other staff outside the view of the camera ready to shoot that croc if Steve had fallen. Obviously, had that been the case, it would not have been in Steve Irwin's best interests (or his program's best interests) to tell people that they take precautions like that, now would it. You must have all the facts.

Please remember that what you see on television is limited to the narrow view of the camera, and that what is presented in a TV show is what the producers of the show want you to see (and yes, that includes the news!). It only superficially reflects reality.

Yes, Ox, I agree with you regarding the possibilty of Steve Irwin being out of his element. I believe that he had survived as long as he did because of his undoubted knowledge of the animals with which he was working, and that the pressures of the TV business had possibly forced him out of his knowledge base and into working with creatures, the capabilities of which he was much less familiar.



[edit on 6/9/06 by The Winged Wombat]


Ox

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I understand about TV perspective.. and the limited field of view from the Camera..

When I say a "Placid" Croc.. I mean.. one that ISNT as aggressive as some of the others that Steve owned.. And he did talk about some being more aggressive than others.. And when I say fixed on the meat.. I mean.. Steve was in a good stance.. with the meat held out at arms length.. with his left side (The side he was holding Bob on) turned more away from the Croc... I believe that if Steve had felt he or his son were in any danger.. he would not have gone into the enclosure..

Ox..



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I wonder if Steve Irwin would still be alive today if he had used an EXPERIENCED underwater photographer instead of a new one who had just recently completed a course in underwater cinematography. Apparently, Steve chose the new guy because he wanted to try him out or give him some experience in that area.... according to one news article I read on this.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
One last question, Ox

You say that Steve had the croc fixed on the meat....... what makes you think that the croc would see any difference between the dangled meat, Steve Irwin, or Bob ! The way crocs behave (storing food underwater, etc), it would have all three if it possibly could. Your assumption that the croc would go for the dangled meat is quite false and misleading. They is all food to the croc! There is no such thing as a placid croc - they cannot be trained in any way shape or form.


[edit on 6/9/06 by The Winged Wombat]


What is your experience in the matter of crocodile training?

IMO there are no animals on this planet that are indiscriminant killers; healthy animals.
That croc was probably fed like that for years. And IMO, crocodiles can tell the difference between a chicken in an outstretched hand, and a baby on a torso.

It was horrible judgement. It doesn't make the man insane.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Oh, really!

Most animals kill for one of two reasons - food or in defense. Of those that kill for food there are two types. those that kill only when they are hungry (eg:- most wild cats) and those that store food. The crocodile stores food by wedging it in branches, etc under water and returns to eat it when it feels like it. This category of animal will kill whenever it gets the opportunity. In evolutionary terms the crocodile has been so successful that there has been no pressure whatsoever for it to develop at all, other than the various species that have adapted to different environments.

A crocodile sees very few things as a predator or as a danger to itself and whenever food is available it will attempt to kill and store it - and that includes man, child and meat. The croc does not discriminate between them.

Get this into your mind - you cannot attribute human reasoning or reactions to an animal's instincts! Just because you can make a reasoned judgement about whether a croc is about to strike, don't for one second think that the croc can do the same concerning you - as far as the croc is concerned you are food, part of it's automatic survival instint. This is not indiscriminate, this is how the creature has survived as a species since before man stood erect!

There are a great number of animals that cannot be trained and even fewer that can be domesticated - for instance although a zebra looks like a horse, it has never been domesticated - ever - period

Of course there is one animal (and only one) that does kill indiscriminately - man! The most dangerous animal on this planet



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Still seeing this article makes me really sad :-/ It's hard to see it still up. He was a good man.. good man..



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
One last question, Ox

You say that Steve had the croc fixed on the meat....... what makes you think that the croc would see any difference between the dangled meat, Steve Irwin, or Bob


I kind of feel disrespectful to Steve engaging in this type of discussion shortly after his death,but i feel i have to say that i totally agree with Ox that these croc`s have been trained to go for the meat,being that i have never seen a croc at his Zoo or Malcom Douglas`s Zoo or the one in Darwin go for say the persons legs etc when the keeper is holding some meat.

That said the Bob incident was a very low point in Steve`s life imo hamming it up for the camera`s,i`m sure he had the situation under control but accidents happen.He`s far from perfect as we all are and would have learned a lot from the incident.

Steve was an Aussie with the old values like mateship which seems to be a dying quality giving way to selfishness slander suing and greed etc,anyone who meet him liked the guy because he was genuine/Dinkey die in the old Aussie slang language.Which is why i get a little upset when i hear people slandering him,call him a nutter
not too many people would disagree me either,but he was much more than just the croc hunter on tv.

Give him due respect for who he was to others.



[edit on 7-9-2006 by gps777]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Good call gps777, i am from the territory originally and all the croc tours and shows up there the croc's have been trained enough to know what they are going for, so much so that a mate who worked at one of the lagoons near Kakadu could tell which croc's would leap up out of the water at certain times to take the bait being offered over the side of the boats. When the boat approached these croc's knew that they were going to be fed and stopped sunbaking and entered the water and swam up to the boats and waited for the meat to be hung over the side.
Sure Steve played up to the camera's and worked the animals for maximum shock value, but there was a method behind his madness, conservation and education, and he was bloody good at it.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Ahhh Kakadu that brings back some fond memories Mojo, fantastic country,and on my to do list again.Good to hear from a fellow Aussie



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
I wonder if Steve Irwin would still be alive today if he had used an EXPERIENCED underwater photographer instead of a new one...


Huh?

Are you saying that because a newbie camera operator couldn't get the shot this caused Steve to corner a ray?

Most wildlife photography is conducted in wideshot to begin with and then steadily closed up. But photograhpers ALWAYS use the zoom function. There is always a gap of at least 2 metres+ and usually significantly more, between the camera operator and the host/presenter. When this happens, it is incumbent on the host to know how much movement he can undertake before he moves out of frame.

The only photographers who swim with the sharks are the ones whose celebrity matches that of the host, and are usually their own hosts, the rest film from the cage 20 metres away.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hobbes
I find it a little vexing that folks think he was reckless. Everything he did was very calculated... the man was a professional.


So was Senna.


BUT... one of his bullet points was that he would not stress out the animals any more than he needed to, as in many cases the animal would never be the same. This is why he generally didn't use 'snake sticks' to hold a snake's jaws shut from afar, or jaw clamps to 'muzzle' crocs.


No, just duct tape, what, exactly, is the difference?


It just goes to show how prevalent that mode of thinking is... 'you have to use a snake stick to pin the snake's jaws, or else it's just reckless'. Feh. That kind of thing has only been made mainstream because most handlers are inept without one.


The kind of snake stick that most wranglers use is for picking the snake up and keeping it at a distance.

The kind of snake stick used for handling wild snakes, which have far freer movement, should have a rubber or bungee "cross" piece specifically not to hurt or damage the snake.


Did that make his job more difficult? Sure. But he put the animal's interests above his own comfort. Some of you will call that 'needless risks'. I don't. I call it admirable.


Right, like using his rucksack as a prop to annoy a cobra and make it "dance" with its head flared ready to strike at a threat is "admirable" and putting the animal's interests first.

As for not stressing out animals more than he needed to. I realise it was a long, long time ago, but I don't remember Harry Butler stressing out animals at all. I well remember him demonstrating a frill-necked lizard by leaving it sitting on the road and approaching only until it flared its neck frills. And how is it stressing a snake out less by holding its tail and having to keep it constantly moving to prevent it climbing itself and striking instead of holding it behind the jaws as all professional snake milkers do?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:40 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by Palasheea
I wonder if Steve Irwin would still be alive today if he had used an EXPERIENCED underwater photographer instead of a new one...


Huh?

Are you saying that because a newbie camera operator couldn't get the shot this caused Steve to corner a ray?





Just wondering if somehow Steve would have been able to avoid that dart in the heart if the person who was with him was an experienced underwater photographer who might have a more developed intuitive sense to detect impending doom in that kind of environment. If that were the case, he could have signaled to Irwin to get the h#ll out the way if he saw that tail coming up from the stingway when it did....

But for all we know, just because the guy was a newbie underwater cameraman, does not mean that he didn't have years of experience as a diver. My guess one would have to be an excellent diver to also be an underwater cameraman. ..


Ox

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Thanks nextguyinline, gps777 and Mojo4sale for your support..

I believe Steve was just being himself.. and the Crocs he had KNEW to go for the food he was holding.. I remember one show where Steve was doing a live show for spectators and the Croc wasnt going for the food.. so Steve kept dangling it.. moving it around and stepping back.. putting as much land between his body and the Croc...

I think that Steve should be remembered as a great man.. a great educator and a great Australian.. I think people that put him down for his antics and say that Steve wasnt in control should go and watch his shows over and over.. and then come back and tell us what they think...

We love ya Steve..



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Howlrunner,

Let's just forget it.... these people believe that you can train crocs and that Steve Irwin had them under his control at all times - No amount of facts will change their stupid illogical beliefs - some of them will, no doubt want a croc as a pet (partly thanks to Steve Irwin)

They probably believe that George Bush is a great guy that doesn't lie either....

Oh, dear, he's just admitted all that stuff about secret prisons that he has been denying for the last few months - LIAR!!

I'm outta here - it is pointless trying to tell anything to those who will not listen or even try to understand. They know it all, my friend - they saw it all on Discovery Channel.

I no longer care if their delusions kill them or not.


[edit on 7/9/06 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
They're not saying that you can train a croc as in "roll over" or "Play dead" but ANY animal if it's raised by people, or lives with people over time will learn that People Bring Food. That's why so many animals can't be released if they're raised or rehabilitated for a long time. They'll learn to come to people for food. It's the same with a croc. He's going to see someone come into his cage and know it's feeding time, and come over to look for the meat.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Most animals will recognise a regular feed and take the food, but if the croc thinks it can get you (a bigger feed), then you are the meal - that's not training or even conditioning, it's just attracting a predator.

If you go to an area where there are mosquitos and show some unprotested flesh, then the mossies will bite you - do you imagine that you've trained the mosquitos or have any control over them ?

Or to put it in human terms - try advertising that you will give away money at a certain place and time - you'll get plenty of people turn up, but you'll probably have a riot as well - you've attracted them, but you have no control over what they might do.

Believe me, there has never been any problem about releasing crocs back into the wild - other than finding them an exclusive area - they are extremely territorial.

PS - I like that signiture Zaphod, we certainly live in the era where BS rules, and I for one am getting pretty sick of being lied to.



[edit on 7/9/06 by The Winged Wombat]




top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join