Stingray kills 'Crocodile Hunter' Steve Irwin

[jepuskar]

Yeah, I hate driving over that thing...always have. That is going to be a highly technical dive site..

 

[Scubaguy62]

I love a debate/argument, but unfortunately, at the moment I don't have the time. However, I will like to address your replies as quickly as I can. If you want to debate some more after that, how about later on tonight?

I have many years experience being around wild animals that you very much. I have, for at least thirty years, been heavily involved outdoor pursuits that put me in close proximity to many land based wild animals. Instead of allowing myself to fall victim to fear through ignorance I’ve spent more than a few years studying their biology and behaviour patterns.

In hindsight, I simply fail to see where fear plays a factor here, but IMHO, having been around wild animals for many years, and having at least thirty years of heavily involved outdoor pursuits (not knowing which pursuits they are), hardly makes you a wildlife expert, nor an animal biologist, unless your pursuits are to the same extent as Mr. Irwin's.

Guess what, you're not the only one. I've been around potentially dangerous wild animals for 40 years, as I'm certain there are other members who have, and and I don't consider myself an expert in wildlife anymore than they do. So if you're trying to throw years of experience at me, that dog won't hunt. Something I used to tell my dance students, flight students, and very soon, my dive students; there's always someone who has more experience, knows more, and does it better than you.

IMHO, for someone who lists their profession as a paralegal to argue the opposite is preposterous. Are you are basing YOUR opinion on YOUR carer as an animal biologist and a wildlife specialist? Preposterous indeed. Not only that, but you list Steve Irwin as a celebrity and TV host. He was also listed as a naturalist…a generic term for one who studies nature. I don’t see too many letters following his name with regards to formal education as a biologist, but you blindly accept the way in which he handled his subjects as of he had those credentials.

What does my profession have anything to do with it? Haven't you ever heard of career changes? Do you know what a paralegal can legally do, in comparison to what an attorney can? Fact; there are only three things I as a paralegal cannot do that an attorney can; 1-give you specific legal advise pertaining to your case (despite knowing it as well as the attorney), 2-represent you in court, and 3-tell you how much representation will cost you. Fact 2; many paralegals are educated to the same level of an attorney, to wit; a Juris Doctorate Degree; I know plenty of them.

Point out where do I claim to be a wildlife expert, or an animal biologist, please. Was Mr. Irwin not a wildlife expert; an animal biologist; a TV host, and someone who fits the description of being a celebrity? Can you disprove Mr. Irwin was not a wildlife expert and and animal biologist? How? What's your evidence? BTW, your original post alludes to comments regarding intearction with wildlife being directed to "non-celebrity," which purports your consideration of him as a celebrity.

No YOU mock what you don''t know or in this who you don't know,that's me. I never mocked him. I have some differences in opnion as to how he handled his subjects, but I never mocked him.

Mock= To treat with ridicule or contempt; deride. To express scorn or ridicule; jeer: yourdictionary.com

IMHO the following statement fits the definition of the above. You might disagree, but that's your opinion. I'm only judging the statement, not the author of the statement. If you can't make that distinction.......

I also felt that he broke just about every rule with regards to interacting with wildlife, and inflicted a tremendous amount of stress on his subjects just to get that good shot.

[qutoe=Storm]What you believe, and your reasons, is your own to do so.[/qutoe]

As are yours

Yes he had experience, but as to the rest, I would hardly call picking up a poisonous snake by its tail as taking every possible precaution. Regardless of his mental comfort zone, he took great chances when handling his subjects, chances that many others (who are professional biologists) have also aid bordered on recklessness.

Oh yes, you have 30+ years of "heavily involved outdoor pursuits." Do any of your pursuits include constantly handling wild animals?....I guess you just proved the point that since we are all individuals, what you may consider idiotic, to other is just second nature. I belive gangrel441 said it best. Read his post.

A man struck dead by lighting walking across a parking lot…his number was up. A man who was in habit of standing in the middle of a field during a lightning storm holding a long metal rod...pushed his luck once too often.

And I suppose that everytime I stepped into the cockpit of the jet I used to fly I tempted fate because being a pilot is an inherintly dangerous occupation, or hobby to some. What about military pilots? Do you know what's a bedrock foundation part of pilot training, civilian or otherwise? Avoiding death. Where to you think scuba diving fits in? Are we tempting fate everytime we strap on scuba gear? We would, if we only have 15 dives under our weightbelt and decided we wanted to dive to 140 feet which results in a decompression obligation, and then we find ourselves short on gas supply, but I hardly believe Mr. Irwin was not trained extensively enough to fit in that, or your scenario.

So lets see because is it was a marine animal that killed him, you assume (more blather) that I was talking about this particular incident, and then surmise that my opinions are based on inexperience because you looked at a dive count that can’t be changes, was set last year, and has no real relevance regarding my experience with wildlife.

A#$-u-me. I don't assume anything my friend. To bad you do. After more than 20 years teaching experience, IMHO, I can say, with a great degree of certainty, that whether the person has a low number of flight hours, dance lessons, or dives, those with little experience don't always know enough to make the statements they make. At any rate, this discussion is limited to a fateful incident involving a marine creature, not to the handling of wildlife in general, and your profile does state you have between 0-15 dives.

If that was last year, then I submit that it's your responsibility to update your profile (SB profiles can be updated; check with netdoc), if in fact, you have exceeded the 15 dive mark, lest people will hold you in the wrong experience level. BTW, seeing as you're from the area of the great lakes, how much ocean diving have you done? All my dives have been ocean dives. And when it comes to freshwater diving, I'm the first to admit I'm as green as a rookie sailor.

Did he only handle marine wildlife? No. Do I have some experience around land based wildlife; yes. Did he handle land based wildlife; yes. Ergo, I can, based on my personal experience I formulate an opinion as to how he broke rules about interacting with animals. One can study a snake without picking it up by the tail and whipping it around. Once can study and appreciate a top tier predator, with out grapling with it. Now ask youself this, did you watch to learn about the wildlife or to watch how he would grapple with them.

Your opinions on how he handled land based wildlife are truly respected, although I doubt you have enough experience handling crocodiles to judge, but nevertheless, this discussion, as I said before, is limited to an incident involving a marine creature that lives IN THE OCEAN. If your experience with ocean creatures is as exhaustive as your experience with land wildlife, then, perhaps, you can make the correlation between land and marine wild life. And to answer your question, I will recite the words of the magazine Dive Training, the publishers of which are also the publishers of Flight Training, "A good diver [pilot] is always learning." Apply the aforementioned as you wish, but IMHO, it serves a great truth.

There is no contradiction. He bought land and turned it over to conservation issues and wildlife parks. Hence he made admirable contributions.

"he donated a generous portion of his movie earnings to various crocodile and animal rescue leagues." A quote from his bipgraphical information. Admirable contribution....wouldn''t you say.

Of course. In that regard, even the P.E.T.A. people should agree with it. OTOH, and maybe I'm just trying to overanalyze the logic of your original statement, but for me to read a statement of how he "broke just about every rule regarding interaction with wildlife," and then read how you admire his contributions, is a bit hard to comprehend, unless I step into your mind, which I can't do.

In short, unless you've walked a mile in the other person's shoes, you don't know how they truly fit. Apply it as you wish.

Peace

 

[Storm]

His number was up. He wasn't standing in the middle of a field during a lightning storm holding a long metal rod. By all accounts, he was swimming in a non-confrontational manner with a creature that we all know to be docile and of little threat, though potentially dangerous if provoked. All who have viewed the tape, including the authorities, have said that he did not appear to be threatening the ray.

Let me tell you a little story from my other area of interest. It is of a man by the name of Mike Hailwood. He was a GP Motorcycle racer, then got his shot to race in Formula 1. Then one day, he was driving to the market with his daughter when they were struck by a truck and he was killed. So you tell me....was he tempting fate? Did it finally bite him back? Or did he simply become a very unusual statistic in what most of us would consider a low risk activity?

I have been on many dives, as deep as 135 ft, and with many creatures that my friends consider dangerous, such as barracuda, shark, moray eel, now stingray I guess...some of those friend would say I am taking crazy risks everytime I have more than 5 feet of water over my head. Some would say I am nuts to be in the water with sharks. So a few years ago, when a drunk driver put my brother-in-law and me into a limestone wall and narrowly missed sending us to the bottom of a 400 ft deep quarry as we were driving home from a weekend at the race track, you tell me...was that the odds evening out for all those times I had engaged in such dangerous and reckless activities as scuba diving and observing the toothed menace at close quarters? Did I get what I had coming all that time? Or was it simply a case of sometimes crap happens?

I am not going to belittle your accident and am happy that you walked away from it.

But just because your friends are ignorant to the sport and the various marine life, or base their belieifs to heresay, myth and sensationalist newspapers and movies, does not mean that I do. The sea life that you mention are not, basedupon their scienticially observed behavior inherently dangerous to a diver, but if provoked or harrassed can be lethal. I have dove with sharks, rays and snorkeled with cuda. I first started diving when I was 20 years old, but just recently got back into the sport. I do not count my earlier experience as diving as the dives were done when I lived in the Carribean, and were not part of a formal training plan...things were a bit looser back then, and I was young and didn't realize, or rather care, that what I was doing was stupid. Age and experience has taught me a lot since then.

Steve Irwins death was a tragic accident, and one that by all accounts, was freakish in nature. But as niether of us were there, nor inside his head, neither of us can know what was going on. Futhermore, as niether of us were inside the ray's head, we do not know how stressed threatened, or otherwise, the animal felt. Hence we do not know WHY it struck.

I made my observations based on his public demonstrations with other animals and although this one incident may have been random, it is a minor mircale, and also a testement to his abiltity to move quickly, that his number did not come up earlier.

You call a ray a "with a creature that we all know to be docile and of little threat, though potentially dangerous if provoked.".

Here's the difference between you and I attitude wise...

First off the creature has been observed on many occasions to be docile. but it is impossible know for certain, when it is in a docile state...thus it is potnentailly always dangerous.. hence as I do not KNOW for certain if it is in a docile mood, I admire it, maybe take a picture, but afford it the respect it's due and keep my distance. Now if it wants to attack it will have to swim a fair distance to get to me.

Secondly any creatue with a defense/offensive mechanism (be it a sting, teeth or venom) that can be fatal to a human, is always a threat as you can NEVER tell what state of defense or hunger they are in.

Finally you mentioned unless provoked. Buy who's standard do you use that term. Mine, yours, man's in genreal, Steve Irwin's in specific. How the heck can you know for certain what state of defensive posture a wild animal is in. Simple answer, unless your Dr Doolittle, you can't. Plain and simple. You can make an assumption, based on previously observed behavior, and general annecdotal evidence and, in some cases, even broad based scientific observation, but those are all still genrealities, and may not apply to the specfic creature infront of you.

Hell we've seen many news stories of the family dog suddenly, and for no APPARENT resaon turning on a family member and ripping them up badly. This from a "domestic" (if any animal could be called that, but thats a whole different argument) animal.

I do not FEAR any animal, but I RESPECT their capabilities. Two years ago I had a rather large boar black bear walk right through my camp at night while I watched from the "safe" confines of my nylon tent. By all "standards", these are not agressive creatures, but a healthy respect for the animals capabilities, and a desire not to become a charter member of the Darwin Club kept me from running outside to get my camera and take a picture. One can observe wildlife wihtout trying to interact with it.

Steve Irwin, perferred to interact with the subjects he was pursuing. The methods and manner he interacted, with these creatures was inherently dangerous. He may ot have been doing this at the time of his death, but my original observations still stand.

I ask you again, if you saw a diver hitching a ride on a sea turtle or hovering a foot above a ray with a camera in hand, or namhandling a puffer so it will puf, would you think, he just playing with the little sea creatures or would you say he's harassing them? If the former, you're anthroprmophizing the animals state to justify your desires to interact with them and that, IMHO is harrassing wildlife.

If you are one who would usually admonish such a diver for harassing sealife, but still think Steve Irwin handled his subject properly, you're a hypocrite.

If you ARE the diver hitching a ride on the turtle, or getting within touching range of the ray, or moray, or cuda, and you finally get hurt, it's your fault, not the creatures. So WHEN it happens don't come crying to me.

Now if you are one who admires marine wildlife, loves to watch them, but is willing to maintain a respectful distance, then give me call sometime, and we'll go look (and maybe take a few pictures) at them anytime.

Peace

 

[jepuskar]

Scubaguy...that was your idea of a short post? You might as well be a lawyer with how you worded that post. Remember, it's just a discussion board. No need to file an internet complaint or something drastic..mmmmmkay?

 

[Diver Dennis]

Yes.

Just like I would deny someone that wanted his footage shown, that just jumped off the hundreath floor, or the bankrobber going down in a hail of bullets hoping for his 15 minutes of fame. I hope the footage is destoyed, you can put me in that box, if you like.

I would question the fairness of comparing him to someone committing suicide or committing a crime. He already was famous, this incident has been on the news all over the world. I can respect other reasons people might not want the footage shown but the reasons you mentioned insinuate the man was something he was not.

 

[Scuba Brad]

Wow what a loss. He was a piece of work and truly one of a kind. I think the law of average caught up with him I agree with Bill.

Happy Diving

 

[audission]

I am not going to...

... at them anytime.

Peace

What Storm said.

 

[gangrel441]

I am not going to...

....at them anytime.

Peace

My point is, if he had been at a picnic with family and friends and gotten stung by a bee, and for some reason that caused anaphalaxis and he went into cardiac arrest, would you still be saying that his lifestyle just caught up with him? Or would you be saying that was quite a strange turn of events, that all the "crazy" stuff he did in his life, and he was brought down by something almost completely out of the realm of what we normally consider dangerous?

We haven't viewed the video evidence yet, but his friends have, his family has, and the authorities investigating his death have. All have said the same thing...that he did not in any way appear to be harassing the ray. Apparently the ray thought otherwise, as rays only strike out defensively. Therefore, this sounds like a mere freak incident to me. What Steve had done with his life previously had little to no bearing. From all accounts given by people who would actually know, virtually everyone who has gone snorkling or diving at Stingray City and Shark Ray Alley have taken identical chances with their lives as Steve did in his last day. His number came up.

As for stressing the animals, Steve almost always took great care to place the animal back where it was taken from, be it the snake's den, the pond, the gopher's hole....I vividly remember many cases where he handled snakes who had just eaten. He made a point not to aggitate the snake too much, for fear of him regurgitating his meal which he had worked so hard for. That goes a bit beyond a divemaster puffing a pufferfish or breaking off a hunk of coral to point out a nudi...

Ideally, I agree with you that nature would be much better if none of us interfered ever. However, in order to keep the wheels of the conservation machine turning, the public needs to be aware of what they are protecting. To handle (or even slightly mishandle) a single creature in front of cameras for the purpose of educating millions on the wonder that creature posesses is a much different scenereo than a divemaster assulting a pufferfish for the amusement of 6 tourists who already have made the effort to go diving in the first place. The proceeds from his shows, sensationalist though they may have been, went largely to funding the Australia Zoo and Steve's other conservation efforts. The Zoo itself, in case you were unaware, is largely populated by "problem creatures" who had made their habitate in harm's way within populated human living areas. The crocs there were for the most part not captured from the billabong, but rather taken out of someone's swimming pool or driveway. Many times a man's actions must be viewed in light of the circumstances. Those crocs were much better off being used to educate the masses than they were with a .45 cal slug in their head and being served as croc meat.

Again I say, in all the time he lived this lifestyle, the best evidence I can offer that he actually knew what he was doing is that he had never been envenomated by a snake or seriously injured by a croc. The way he left us only tells us that he unwittingly let his guard down around a creature most of us (though perhaps not you) would not have considered threatening. Chalk it up to a miscommunication.

 

[Storm]

Scubaguy...that was your idea of a short post? You might as well be a lawyer with how you worded that post. Remember, it's just a discussion board. No need to file an internet complaint or something drastic..mmmmmkay?

He is entitled to his opinion and to express it. It's obvious that he is a fan and I not so much. I prefer to watch programs, and read about biologists and scientists, (and their studies), who understand that the first rule in scientifically studying wildlife is to avoid direct interaction as much as possible...the interaction itself alters the subject's natural state, and behaviour, thus contaminating any relevant findings. Gather samples for lab study is one thing, but to harass etc, for showmanship and to entertain in my opinion, is wrong.

Steve Irwin was not the first to do use interaction in an attempt to educate and entertain a TV audience. Marlin Perkins, Jim Fowler and Peter Gros, as well a Jacques Cousteau also preferred to interact with their subjects. In fact it may be said that Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom established the precedent by which many following wildlife shows adopted. There were some back then, and still today, who felt that these other naturalist, as well were too “hands on” in their dealings with wildlife.

Fowler said it best,

“The continued existence of wildlife and wilderness is important to the quality of life of humans. The challenge of the future is that we realize we are very much a part of the earth’s ecosystem, and learn to respect and live according to the basic biological laws of nature.”

Even pre-eminent scientists like Anthropologist Dian Fossey, crossed the line between study and observation and interaction when pressured by her benefactor’s to produce more interesting pictures for their magazine.

The objections I had with regards to TV show naturalists over handling their subjects is that it is done for show, and spectacle, and adds very little, if any, new knowledge about their subjects. (Other than if you pick me up I’ll try to bite you). In some cases it can be attributed to a desire to combat the viewing audiences fear, and misunderstanding about the creature’s nature and behaviour, in others, it’s for thrills, ratings and funding. If the former, I applaud the endeavour, of the later, well so be it, but don’t expect me to agree nor condone the action, I politely refuse. Karma is watching.

Again I stress that I did not assume that he went looking for the ray, or harrassed the ray (nor did I say he deserved what happened ) merely that I objected to his usual manner of overhandling many of not all, of the subject he used for his TV shows, and that is was a wonder he had not been seriously hurt as a result of some of his antics.

I also have a problem with hypocritical attitudes that on one hand say to the average Joe, “don’t touch” but then root on another to do so simply because they are a celebrity.

 

[rigdiver]

He was unique and got to do what he loved for a living. Wish we could all be so lucky. God rest his soul and help his family.