# In memory of Steve Irwin



## boardslide315

On one of the many television tributes already paid to him, it was mentioned that Steve Irwin’s various wildlife documentaries have been broadcasted in over 30 countries around the world. This is not surprising, considering the importance and universal nature of his mission: educating people about the importance of conserving wildlife. 

Since we have a very diverse group here at WR, I thought I would create this thread to see just how widespread this message has become. Steve Irwin was a great man, and I have no doubt his memory will be honored in all parts of the world. 

That being said, how well is Steve Irwin (aka "The Crocodile Hunter") known in your country? How will he be remembered by you personally?


----------



## Fernita

Steve Irwin is very well-known in my family and we all feel really sad about his death.We were just watching different wildlife documentaries and we´ll all remember him as an *outstanding defender of the environment and wild animals*, of course.
There are many TV channels talking about him at the moment. Believe it or not, there are some people who don´t know who he was.
Steve Irwin will not be easily forgotten by us. Personally speaking, I really admired him in all senses: *a great human being devoted to spread the importance of conserving wildlife. He will live forever.*


----------



## Victoria32

boardslide315 said:


> On one of the many television tributes already paid to him, it was mentioned that Steve Irwin’s various wildlife documentaries have been broadcasted in over 30 countries around the world. This is not surprising, considering the importance and universal nature of his mission: educating people about the importance of conserving wildlife.
> 
> Since we have a very diverse group here at WR, I thought I would create this thread to see just how widespread this message has become. Steve Irwin was a great man, and I have no doubt his memory will be honored in all parts of the world.
> 
> That being said, how well is Steve Irwin (aka "The Crocodile Hunter") known in your country? How will he be remembered by you personally?


He was a wonderful entertainer, and very well-known in New Zealand. We (my son and I) watched his TV show when it was on, his enthusiasm was marvellously infectious. 
My managers and co-workers in Australia have all mentioned him in their phone calls and emails to me since it happened.
He was a wonderful, happy and entertaining man.


----------



## Brioche

That wonderful source of sweetness and light, *Germain Greer*, couldn't find anything nice to say about him in that beacon of journalistic integrity *The Guardian.*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1865124,00.html

When you get to the bottom, you'll see that his greatest sin was to support the current Prime Minister of Australia.

Don't worry about the words that Germs puts in his mouth.
For Steve Irwin's own views on conservation and habitat preservation see:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s960998.htm


----------



## Etcetera

I've just heard about Steve Irwin's death from my friends. Here in Russia he is rather well-known.
Frankly, I haven't even heard his name before, but I'm not a devoted TV-fan nor a big wildlife-lover. But my friends are great fans of Irwin's films, and they're just shocked by his tragic death. 
I think I'll try to find and watch some Irwin's films.


----------



## MonsieurAquilone

A man who, simply, died for the things he loved.  He will be sorely missed.  A true cultural icon. Long live Steve Irwin in every animal.


----------



## maxiogee

A show-man. One who knew precisely what he was doing when he did his 'to camera' stunts. He was well-known in Ireland, but generally regarded as being daft as a brush. I would presume that he was well-nigh uninsurable and hope that he has left his wife and family well provided for.
I prefer my wildlife documentaries more Attenborough than Irwin.

--edit--
I have just finished reading the Germaine Greer article and can't see the source of Brioche's animosity. But from the comments on both her and the newspaper, maybe it predates the article.


----------



## Hakro

boardslide315 said:


> That being said, how well is Steve Irwin (aka "The Crocodile Hunter") known in your country? How will he be remembered by you personally?


I read today about Irwin's death in the biggest newsapaper of Finland. I believe we have had his programs in our TV, but as I'm watching TV very seldom I can't be sure.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

My family and I used to follow every episode of his docu-series aired on Animal Planet. His movie, Collision Course, was once a big hit on Turkish pay-per-view. Frankly, I felt awfully bad when I first heard about his death on TV yesterday. I can't still believe he's gone in that way... Rest in peace, Crocodile man. 

Please take a look at this.


----------



## clipper

A question..

In an article on Yahoo, which I cannot now find again to quote, a scientist stated something like "deaths from Stingray stings are very rare, perhaps the creature felt threatened by being trapped between Steve and the camera man".

This suggests that the fish "deliberatley" attacked to kill, not just to wound. Is this a realistic statement ? Is it realistic to think a fish knows where to strike a human in order to cause the most damage ? 

I for one am not convinced of this, surely the fish would just strike out randomly and the severity of the wound would be down to luck.... ANy experts out there ? I'm intrigued.

RIP Steve. You will be missed.


----------



## .   1

clipper said:


> A question..
> 
> In an article on Yahoo, which I cannot now find again to quote, a scientist stated something like "deaths from Stingray stings are very rare, perhaps the creature felt threatened by being trapped between Steve and the camera man".
> 
> This suggests that the fish "deliberatley" attacked to kill, not just to wound. Is this a realistic statement ? Is it realistic to think a fish knows where to strike a human in order to cause the most damage ?
> 
> I for one am not convinced of this, surely the fish would just strike out randomly and the severity of the wound would be down to luck.... ANy experts out there ? I'm intrigued.
> RIP Steve. You will be missed.


I have a fair bit of experience with sand rays and the danger from those is from the tail being whipped around. I think that the insertion was a fluke. Had he been whipped on naked skin he would have probably died from shock and suffocation due to pain and the immobilsation of his breathing muscles. I am led to believe that Mr. Irwin was actually pierced through the heart which is far too accurate to be anything but a fluke. Mr. Irwin had a habit of pushing his luck with dangerous animals and it looks as though the dice finally fell for him.

.,,


----------



## french4beth

Steve Irwin was quite well known in the US & we'll all miss him terribly. He really made nature shows entertaining. I've been hooked on nature shows since I was a kid & faithfully watched every National Geographic special & Jacques Cousteau documentary.

"Freak accident" doesn't even begin to describe what happened - from what I've heard in the media, Steve & the cameraman didn't do anything to provoke the stingray, it just happened to spear Steve right in the heart.

From what I've heard, if Steve could have chosen a way to die, it would have been in his beloved outdoors.  Guess he got his wish.

I feel very badly for his wife & children - he was so young, it's a shame to see him go so soon...


----------



## hohodicestu

Hi,

I still can't believe he is gone. I went to one of his shows not long ago. I sat so close to him once and he was so nice and wonderful to everybody. Today, we remember him as a great wild-animal lover who died loving his job and doing what he always wanted to do.
We would like to send our sincere condolences to the Irwin Family and all of his relatives.


----------



## Noel Acevedo

It is very unfortunate the way he died, remembered as the crocodile hunter and watched as such on our local TV both in English as well as in Spanish.  But pulling the tails of crocs and picking up poisonous snakes does make him an environment lover; he pushed the envelope way beyond reason and paid dearly for it.

Noel


----------



## heidita

> From what I've heard, if Steve could have chosen a way to die, it would have been in his beloved outdoors. Guess he got his wish.


 
I knew him from The Tonight Show, where he took the weirdest animals to attack and pee on the host (it really happened!) and you could see the love he felt for them and the life he led. I think he was remarkable though a bit crazy. I don't think we can say he paid for his craziness though, he just died where he would have liked to die. Probably not so young, but doing what he loved most.


----------



## Everness

heidita said:


> *I knew him from The Tonight Show, where he took the weirdest animals to attack and pee on the host (it really happened!) and you could see the love he felt for them and the life he led.* I think he was remarkable though a bit crazy. I don't think we can say he paid for his craziness though, he just died where he would have liked to die. Probably not so young, but doing what he loved most.



First of all, my heart goes out to his family. I'm sure they're going through hell right now. 

I once watched part of one of his shows. I switched channels almost immediately for 2 reasons. 

First, the possibility of someone getting hurt or hurting an animal turns me off. It's like going to a circus to watch trapeze artists perform without a net under them. Some people get a kick out of that. I become very anxious because I fear they will fall on their heads and that part of their brain will end up on my lap. 

Second, I think Mr. Irwin made his living out of pissing off dangerous animals in their natural habitat or in a TV studio. I still fail to see the educational value of this type of shows. I think it amounts to animal cruelty and torture. I'm sure there must be alternative ways of showing your love to animals or becoming a preservationist.


----------



## heidita

Everness said:


> Second, I think Mr. Irwin *made his living out of pissing off dangerous animals in their natural habitat or in a TV studio.* I still fail to see the educational value of this type of shows. I think it amounts to animal cruelty and torture. I'm sure there must be alternative ways of showing your love to animals or becoming a preservationist.


 

Very strange this post, as Irwin was known for his love of animals.

To "show" animals on very popular TV shows made not only the figure popular but also the animal itself and this fame contributed to many a contribution to save wild life.

I don't know what other shows do, but I have never seen anything cruel on the show I talked about in my post, not with animals anyway!


----------



## Chazzwozzer

Everness said:


> Second, I think Mr. Irwin made his living out of pissing off dangerous animals in their natural habitat or in a TV studio.


Funny. Have you ever heard where proceeds go? Did you hear about Steve Irwin Charity, Crocodile Rescue, Lyn Irwin Memorial Fund etc?



Everness said:


> I still fail to see the educational value of this type of shows. I think it amounts to animal cruelty and torture. I'm sure there must be alternative ways of showing your love to animals or becoming a preservationist.


_"I've probably saved thousands of peoples' lives with my educational message on snake bites, how to get in around venomous anything. Yeah, I'm a thrill seeker, but crikey, education's the most important thing." _-Steve Irwin


----------



## Everness

heidita said:


> Very strange this post, as Irwin was known for his love of animals.
> 
> To "show" animals on very popular TV shows made not only the figure popular but also the animal itself and this fame contributed to many a contribution to save wild life.
> 
> I don't know what other shows do, but I have never seen anything cruel on the show I talked about in my post, not with animals anyway!



Heidita, hablemos en la lengua angelical. Solo vi su programa una vez y por unos pocos minutos. El tipo estaba al lado de un cocodrilo. Creo que tenia un palito en la mano y medio lo tocaba. En una de esas el reptil anfibio dio una vuelta en el aire y si el tipo no saltaba hacia atras como 2 metros, el cocodrilo le hubiera devorado medio cuerpo en el primer intento. Eso me basto para cambiar de canal por las razones expresadas mas arriba. 

Lo que yo sostengo es que hay otras formas de explicarle a la audiencia televisiva que si uno jode a un animal salvaje, el mismo se va a defender y te va a matar si es posible. Es verdad que solo vi un poco de uno de sus programas. A lo mejor aprendio la leccion y dejo a los cocodrilos tranquilos. No dudo de sus buenas intenciones. Pero a mi me bastaron esos pocos minutos para confirmar algo que ya sabia: para entretener a las masas el fin no justifica los medios.


----------



## heidita

Everness said:


> Heidita, hablemos en la lengua angelical.


 
I am sorry, I do not agree as this thread was opened in English, and we cannot expect everybody to speak Spanish. So I will stick to English out of politeness towards our fellow forers.



> si uno jode a un animal salvaje,


 
I do not think that at any moment Mr. Irwin was "fucking" around with any wild animal. He was introducing them to the audience and making such unknown animals at least known to the public and therefore making people interested in their conservation and protection.




> . Es verdad que solo vi un poco de uno de sus programas.


 
Well, probably you should have bothered to view his programmes carefully to understand his love for animals. I never saw any of his programmes but only appearances on others as the one mentioned above. And I never saw him or the host treat any of the animals shown there (not even very nasty looking spiders, to my eyes anyway) any disrespect. I do not think the place of a crocodile in on a TV show. But on the other hand, if this helps in any way to make animals more known and promote animal aid organizations I think it is worth it.

In any case I would like to underline that *this thread is to talk about Steve Irwin*, not about whether animals should or not be shown on TV shows, about cruelty towards animals or such alike. If you, Everness, should want to talk about these topics I would suggest you open a new thread.


----------



## Everness

heidita said:


> Well, probably you should have bothered to view his programmes carefully to understand his love for animals. I never saw any of his programmes but only appearances on others as the one mentioned above.



heidita, I watched his show once and just for a couple of minutes (and I definitely didn't like what I saw) and you didn't watch his show at all! With so low exposure to primary sources, we might not be the most authoritative voices to discuss what Mr. Irwin did or didn't do on behalf of animals. Again, I sympathize with his family and respect others' opinions on his contributions. By the way, there's already a thread on animal cruelty so I don't think it's necessary to open another one. However, and although they aren't mutually exclusive, I think we should focus on cruelty to human beings first.


----------



## nmartyn

For fans who could not make it to the public memorial service, please light a candle in memory of this great man at his online memorial link below;

theeternalportal.com/memorials/show.asp?id=402


Thanks everyone!
Nathan


----------



## Bonjules

Hi,
I don't know whether Steve I. was 'a great man'. He certainly was
a great entertainer and I believe he saw himself principally as such.
His medium were animals and he was very good at it; it seemed natural to him to handle and understand them.
If he raised some conciousness for them through his activity, that's great; I don't know that he 'loved' animals other than as his medium. The animals were clearly not always pleased, although Germaine G. could have said that in a nicer way.
The larger issue in this is why we always have the urge to see people that
'stand out', be it as artists, entertainers, writers -or simply because they are cast into the lime light, like Diana - as 'great people'. This seems to be
OUR need (Seriously. Are there studies on this?). More often than not those folks are just as greedy, petty, vain, bigoted or otherwise unpleasant as ourselves. 
Probably only his wife and his parents have an idea of whether he was 'a great man".
Saludos


----------



## pedro0001

I agree with Everness. I really didn't know him before and maybe this person has made very good thinks in his life, *but since I saw a 30 second video of him feeding a crocodile with his own baby in the arms, that was enough*. The guy have lost all my respect. He was totally crazy! Maybe the people who don't have children cannot fully undertand what this means. But playing with the life of other people (and in this case a baby!!) in this way is the worst a person can do.


----------



## boardslide315

pedro0001 said:


> I agree with Everness. I really didn't know him before and maybe this person has made very good thinks in his life, *but since I saw a 30 second video of him feeding a crocodile with his own baby in the arms, that was enough*. The guy have lost all my respect. He was totally crazy! Maybe the people who don't have children cannot fully undertand what this means. But playing with the life of other people (and in this case a baby!!) in this way is the worst a person can do.



 With tears in his eyes, Steve Irwin had said on more than one occasion that his family was the most important thing in his life. He would have died for his family, and to even consider that he would have subjected his son to even the minutest risk is simply ridiculous. Steve Irwin worked with crocodiles his entire life and understood them perhaps better than anyone else in the world, and to believe that he was in any less than complete control of that situation is nothing short of ignorant. He was completely shocked at the international controversy that arose from that clip, as was his wife and anyone else who knew him. 

While it might be true that the majority of his audience members who watched him thought "this guy is crazy," the simple fact is this was his _profession_ and he _knew _what he was doing, always. Ever since the age of seven, thirty years before he ever had a television camera pointed at him, he had started relocating crocodiles and other at risk animals that other people feared, simply because he was passionate about them. Although his show was entertaining to those who did not fully understand its purpose, it was his belief that at least some members of his audience would be affected by it and motivated to work towards conserving wildlife. Every cent he earned from his show and his zoo has gone straight into conservation. 

   He knew that crocs, snakes, and other animals _could _be respected, and that if he could show people it was possible for someone to get close to them like they would a dog or cat, then maybe some of the ignorance about them (and mindless killing associated with it) would end. If there is anyone out there that cannot respect a person this caring and passionate, I truly pity your ignorance. I hope one day your eyes will open just enough to see the light he so enthusiastically shined on the creatures that so many of us refuse to even acknowledge as being less than evil.


----------



## heidita

boardslide315 said:


> Ever since the age of seven, thirty years before he ever had a television camera pointed at him, he had started relocating crocodiles and other at risk animals that other people feared, simply because he was passionate about them....* it was his belief that at least some members of his audience would be affected by it and motivated to work towards conserving wildlife. *Every cent he earned from his show and his zoo has gone straight into conservation.


 
As I stated before, I saw Irwin only a few times on the Tonight Show, where he was highly respected and where, after his death, they dedicated some time to remember him dearly.

That is exactly the idea he brought over, that he respected wild life enormously and that he wanted to make these evil looking creatures like "normal " animals to us. He always was aware of their danger and he always advised of it but he also praised their dedication as mothers (crocodiles) and all his aim was to make these animals better understood. I have no doubt that he was in COMPLETE control of the situation, always, with or without his child. Controversy which only proved the ignorance of his life.


----------



## cyanista

boardslide315 said:


> He knew that crocs, snakes, and other animals _could _be respected, and that if he could show people it was possible for someone to get close to them like they would a dog or cat, then maybe some of the ignorance about them (and mindless killing associated with it) would end. If there is anyone out there that cannot respect a person this caring and passionate, I truly pity your ignorance. I hope one day your eyes will open just enough to see the light he so enthusiastically shined on the creatures that so many of us refuse to even acknowledge as being less than evil.



Sorry, but this sounds as if S.I. were a new prophet (and a martyr for that matter). He was just a lucky guy who'd been able to turn his hobby into a profession, and was hugely successful because he knew what sells. And he was not the first one who thought he was invulnerable. I find this a pity that he died so tragically but you know he qiute consciously made his occupation _that_ dangerous.


----------



## pedro0001

boardslide315 said:


> With tears in his eyes, Steve Irwin had said on more than one occasion that his family was the most important thing in his life.



His acts don't confirm what he said.



boardslide315 said:


> He would have died for his family, and to even consider that he would have subjected his son to even the minutest risk is simply ridiculous.



He died, and left his family alone (what a wonderful father).



boardslide315 said:


> Steve Irwin worked with crocodiles his entire life and understood them perhaps better than anyone else in the world, and to believe that he was in any less than complete control of that situation is nothing short of ignorant. He was completely shocked at the international controversy that arose from that clip, as was his wife and anyone else who knew him.



Tell me, do you have kids? Would you have allowed  the mr-absolute-control-of-the-situation to make the same show with your own kid? Be sincere. If you answer yes, it is very very probable that you don't have any child



boardslide315 said:


> While it might be true that the majority of his audience members who watched him thought "this guy is crazy," the simple fact is this was his _profession_ and he _knew _what he was doing, always. Ever since the age of seven, thirty years before he ever had a television camera pointed at him, he had started relocating crocodiles and other at risk animals that other people feared, simply because he was passionate about them. Although his show was entertaining to those who did not fully understand its purpose, it was his belief that at least some members of his audience would be affected by it and motivated to work towards conserving wildlife. Every cent he earned from his show and his zoo has gone straight into conservation.
> 
> He knew that crocs, snakes, and other animals _could _be respected, and that if he could show people it was possible for someone to get close to them like they would a dog or cat, then maybe some of the ignorance about them (and mindless killing associated with it) would end.



He was a great guy, with the nature, not with his own family. I respect that part of Irwin, a guy who wanted a better world. What I cannot respect is that he wanted a better world at the expenses of his family (before answering to this sentence, tell me, is he still alive?)



boardslide315 said:


> If there is anyone out there that cannot respect a person this caring and passionate, I truly pity your ignorance. I hope one day your eyes will open just enough to see the light he so enthusiastically shined on the creatures that so many of us refuse to even acknowledge as being less than evil.



Why do you want to offend me? Why are you so angry?


----------



## Bonjules

I think I must agree with Cyanista:
Regardless of how he ultimately felt about animals (only he knew that)
it must be admitted that he used the thrill of danger quite clearly
as part of his act. He was a great entertainer and he knew people
would love it. 
 Ironic that he fell victim to a situation where he apparently thought
there was no danger.


----------



## heidita

pedro0001 said:


> He died, and left his family alone (what a wonderful father).


 
My father died at the age of 42 and left us alone. He was a wonderful father.





> Tell me, do you have kids? Would you have allowed the mr-??absolute-control-of-the-situation to make the same show with your own kid? Be sincere. If you answer yes, it is very very probable that you don't have any child


 
I wonder why people with children think they are the only true and 
worth-listening-to judges of whatever happens to children.





> He was a great guy, with the nature, not with his own family. I respect that part of Irwin, a guy who wanted a better world. What I cannot respect is that he wanted a better world at the expense of his family (before answering me this sentence, tell me, is he still alive?)


He taught his children to love a better world where everybody respect everybody even evil looking animals. Why ask this? So, let's say he died in a car accident, then his death would have been more "reasonable " to you?


[/quote]


----------



## Alxmrphi

On a side note, have people heard his daughter wants to swim with the same stingray that killed her dad? I think that's a testimony to how he raised her and although I think it's a bad idea, it's very respectable.

Another point, I hate the way all his fans in Australia have been killing stingrays and cutting off their tails around the coast, how can these people call themselves fans of him? Ugh!!!!!!!!!


----------



## .   1

Alex_Murphy said:


> On a side note, have people heard his daughter wants to swim with the same stingray that killed her dad? I think that's a testimony to how he raised her and although I think it's a bad idea, it's very respectable.
> 
> Another point, I hate the way all his fans in Australia have been killing stingrays and cutting off their tails around the coast, how can these people call themselves fans of him? Ugh!!!!!!!!!


I would seriously doubt this assumption.
It is beyond me to think that these dispicable acts were performed by anybody with any positive feelings for Mr. Irwin.
The stingrays were killed by sadistic morons who just took the opportunity.
There was nothing like any respect for animals and the behaviour displayed by such cretins is the opposite of that suggested by Mr. Irwin.

.,,


----------



## pedro0001

heidita said:


> My father died at the age of 42 and left us alone. He was a wonderful father.


 
 I'm sorry to hear that. My father also died as I was 3 years old. It was a car accident but no one could have known that the accident would happen. It is not the case of S.I.



heidita said:


> I wonder why people with children think they are the only true and  worth-listening-to judges of whatever happens to children.


 
 That's not true. But you do see things differently when you have children. 




heidita said:


> He taught his children to love a better world where everybody respect everybody even evil looking animals.



You can make a better world without feeding a crocodile with your own child in the arms.



heidita said:


> Why ask this? So, let's say he died in a car accident, then his death would have been more "reasonable " to you?



He did not die in a car accident and no death is reasonable. I cannot respect him because he exposured himself and his child to a unnecesary danger (And don't tell me he had complete control of the situation after knowing how he died).  That's all.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Well pedro, you know more than us, but don't for a second think that we have control over our lives and I could be unnecessarily shot this afternoon and it would be my fault, yes people put themselves in bad situations, a lot don't.


----------



## pedro0001

> He taught his children to believe in a better world and respect everybody and every kind of animal, evil looking or not. What teaching could be more worth while?
> Why at the_ expense_ of his family? So what about any father, like a politician, a policeman, a construction worker? Don't they risk their life every day?



Do you mean feeding crocodiles with his childrens in the arms?


----------



## pedro0001

> Well pedro, you know more than us, but don't for a second think that we have control over our lives and I could be unnecessarily shot this afternoon and it would be my fault, yes people put themselves in bad situations, a lot don't.



I didn't say I know more than you. If you mean it because I have children and you not, then it is not that I know more. I feel different. That's all.


----------



## maxiogee

pedro0001 said:


> I cannot respect him because he exposured himself and his child to a unnecesary danger (And don't tell me he had complete control of the situation after knowing how he died).  That's all.



I did not like Steve Irwin.
I felt him a showman of the worst kind - over the top, rough with the animals he purported to love, and raucous. As I said, I prefer the Attenborough approach to wildlife.

That said, anyone who had seen any of his regular behavious and saw how he behaved when feeding that crocodile while holding his child knows that he was in control of the situation. Had that crocodile shown any indication of threat, all he would have had to do was stand up and that child would yhave been out of danger. It was a docile animal.

However, pedro0001 appears to have a closed mind on the situation.
Yes, I have a child. Yes I exposed him to 'danger' when he was young, and he loved every minute of it. Children enjoy a bit of "adult-controlled fear". The child who is never exposed to danger by its parents grows up with a maladjusted psyche (I believe. I've no evidence, so don't bother asking.) as they fear doing anything which is not 'safe'. How many parents unwittingly load fear of the unknown onto their children with two regularly spoken phrases - (a)Don't talk to strangers; and (b)Take care honey?

(a) Figures show again and again that it is not strangers who pose threats to our children, it is people they know and trust. Don't talk to strangers is insular and inhibiting. Strangers hold knowledge and opinions which conflict with what we hear repeatedly if we are only exposed to people we know.

(b) The injunction "Take care" from a parent to a child, repeated often enough, builds up into a "Mommy will be worried" attitude when the child decides to risk something. The unspoken implication is that "not taking care" will somehow hurt Mommy or Daddy.

As I said, I didn't like him, but I admired his goal in exposing his child to the photographers as camera fodder - and that was probably worse than exposing it to the crocodile!


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Apparently he did, in a sideways sort of way, admit that this was really a rather dumb thing to do.  His words were something like "I should have gone surfing instead on that day".


----------



## Alxmrphi

I've lost what is being talked about here, who said that quote Chaska, cos it couldn't have been Irwin, because he died soon after, so, I'm lost.


----------



## .   1

Alex_Murphy said:


> I've lost what is being talked about here, who said that quote Chaska, cos it couldn't have been Irwin, because he died soon after, so, I'm lost.


Mr. Irwin appologised on numerous occasions in relation to the Baby Bob and the crocodile incident.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Apparently he did, in a sideways sort of way, admit that this was really a rather dumb thing to do.  His words were something like "I should have gone surfing instead on that day".



That could be a reference to the fuss which arose as a result, and not a contrition for the action, which - let's face it - was a long way from being as serious as the famous Michael Jackson & dangling baby incident.


----------



## ireney

I never liked the man (for reasons others have stated before).

I believe that he was more or less in control of the crocodile situation true, I bet he wouldn't do it if he thought his child would end up as a crocodile snack, so, since he sincerely believed that there was no danger, it was sort of OK.

Why "sort of"? 
a) using your child for raising your rates (and this is what he did as far as I am concerned) is despicable
b) he thought he was in control with the stingray too didn't he?


----------



## Eugin

I have to say that I agree with Mr. Pedro0001´s point of view. 

I didn´t know about Irwin before his death…. and couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw that clip of him with the croc and his child in his arms… I guess all of us know that we are responsible for our children, since they didn´t ask to come to this world and exposing that little baby to that danger, was really unnecessary… I don’t see anything heroic about that behaviour… he was lucky that time… but what if the croc got nearer him?? Would we be saying now? “Oh, well, he knew this could happen” or “He was a hell of a father”? 

I am currently doing a course of scuba-diving, and when we asked our professor for his opinion regarding Irwin´s death, he simply said: “He knew that what he was doing was dangerous…. He knew his actions would make the stingray mad…. So, he was “playing with fire”… and I don´t think that can be a good example for anyone or at least, an example of what we should not do…. Since the animal was also defending himself… it was its instinct.. it can only think of defending itself. But, in the other hand, Irwin was aware of the fact that he was doing something dangerous and the consequences of his actions…. but nevertheless, he went on with his ambition…

Our professor said something wise: “I never knew an old diver who didn´t have fear while diving”, meaning: What keeps you alive is the fear of your actions…. and Irwin went beyond his fear… and that was how his life ended… Sad but true…


----------



## maxiogee

Eugin said:


> exposing that little baby to that danger



*Was* the child exposed to danger?


----------



## cuchuflete

Considering who else has appeared in the obituary pages since this thread began, I am surprised at the amount of attention this person is receiving.


----------



## Eugin

maxiogee said:


> *Was* the child exposed to danger?


 
Is this an ironic comment, Tony??


----------



## maxiogee

Eugin said:


> exposing that little baby to that danger





maxiogee said:


> *Was* the child exposed to danger?





Eugin said:


> Is this an ironic comment, Tony??



No. It is a straight question. Was the child in any physical danger?

I am open to be convinced. I don't think it was in any danger at all.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> Considering who else has appeared in the obituary pages since this thread began, I am surprised at the amount of attention this person is receiving.



I had a no-news week recently. Who did I miss out on?


----------



## boardslide315

pedro0001 said:


> Why do you want to offend me? Why are you so angry?


 
I’m not trying to offend you, but yes it makes me a little angry when people judge others based on very little knowledge of the subject. And again, holding his son was not some sort of stunt for the cameras; the fact is, Irwin _always _had a camera pointed on him while he was working. He knew his children would be growing up in this environment, and so felt it necessary to teach his children of these dangers from an early age. 



pedro0001 said:


> Tell me, do you have kids? Would you have allowed the mr-absolute-control-of-the-situation to make the same show with your own kid? Be sincere. If you answer yes, it is very very probable that you don't have any child


 
This is a bit unfair; while I don’t have kids myself, I agree that I probably wouldn’t allow my child to be in his arms. And, despite my respect for him, I don’t think any person should trust another to that extent with the lives of their children, unless they are their spouse. However, I feel that many men would subject their children to the “dangers” of their profession with their own children. To me, feeding a croc was no different than if a professional helicopter pilot were to allow his child to ride in the passenger seat, or an experienced sailor taking him out on a boat, or even the common man letting him pet the family Dalmatian. Confidence arises from experience and knowledge--we fear crocodiles as being monsters, but this is simply not the case, and Iwin knew this better than anyone else in the world. 




Eugin said:


> “He knew that what he was doing was dangerous…. He knew his actions would make the stingray mad…. So, he was “playing with fire”… and I don´t think that can be a good example for anyone or at least, an example of what we should not do…. Since the animal was also defending himself… it was its instinct.. it can only think of defending itself. But, in the other hand, Irwin was aware of the fact that he was doing something dangerous and the consequences of his actions…. but nevertheless, he went on with his ambition…


 
Need I remind you that there have only been 3 recorded stingray deaths in the history of Australia? Dogs, snakes, even kangaroos have killed countless more than that. Stingrays are extremely docile creatures, and his death was a 1 in a million thing. Statistically, I would not doubt it if he was more likely to have died on the car ride over.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> No. It is a straight question. Was the child in any physical danger?
> 
> I am open to be convinced. I don't think it was in any danger at all.


Do you think that Baby Bob would have been safe had Mr. Irwin stumbled when the crocodile moved quickly?

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Don't you mean a quadruple "if" there — 
*if* the crocodile had moved quickly on land (it was in the water when it jumped), 
*if* he had stumbled, 
*if* he had stumbled in the one direction which favoured the crocodile, and 
*if* he had been too close?


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> Don't you mean a quadruple "if" there —
> *if* the crocodile had moved quickly on land (it was in the water when it jumped),
> *if* he had stumbled,
> *if* he had stumbled in the one direction which favoured the crocodile, and
> *if* he had been too close?


May I remind you of the current status of Mr. Irwin who was sure that he was in control of that situation as well.
Quadruple ifs happen far too often.
The Baby Bob incident was just a cheap publicity stunt that Mr. Irwin got away with and Baby Bob survived as much through good luck as good management.
It is apparent to me that Mr. Irwin began to believe his own publicity and he paid with his life.  That price could have been the life of his baby.

.,,


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

cuchuflete said:


> Considering who else has appeared in the obituary pages since this thread began, I am surprised at the amount of attention this person is receiving.



I'm still trying to work out what Irwin's death has to do with language or languages. Was he a polyglot? Did the death of Peter Ladefoged a few months ago get the same level of attention on these forums? 

I know the title is "cultural discussions", but if Irwin counts as culture, well then so does pretty much anything.


----------



## GenJen54

Mod Note: Typically, threads of this kind are considered "out of our scope," but we do make allowances from time to time for In Memorium types of threads, especially when the person being commemorated was known world wide for his/her work, as is the case with Mr. Irwin.

This is definitely the exception, and not the rule.

If you wish to see what is within our scope here, please see THIS sticky.


----------



## maxiogee

GenJen54 said:


> Mod Note: Typically, threads of this kind are considered "out of our scope," but we do make allowances from time to time for In Memorium types of threads, especially when the person being commemorated was known world wide for his/her work, as is the case with Mr. Irwin.



Does "In Memoriam" include speaking ill of the dead - that's generally a no-no around here until, shall we say, a decent interval has elapsed.
has it occurred to anyone that the "Child Protection Services", or their local equivalent,n would have called him in for a chat if there had been any grounds to do so.


----------



## GenJen54

The thread starter specifically asked members to respond to this question:





> That being said, how well is Steve Irwin (aka "The Crocodile Hunter") known in your country? *How will he be remembered by you personally*?


 
That said, even negative impressions are allowable, even if they are not agreed with.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I still wan't to know who cuchuflete was refering to.


----------



## pedro0001

boardslide315 said:


> He knew his children would be growing up in this environment, and so felt it necessary to teach his children of these dangers from an early age.



Hello boardslide315. Let's discuss but not offend, ok?  Sorry, but have you seen the video? It was a baby! It was not a child who can understand something about the what was happening. It was a baby. From the videos I can estimate that the baby was approx. 7 months old. A 7 Months old baby can learn these dangers? 



boardslide315 said:


> This is a bit unfair; while I don’t have kids myself, I agree that I probably wouldn’t allow my child to be in his arms. And, despite my respect for him, I don’t think any person should trust another to that extent with the lives of their children, unless they are their spouse. However, I feel that many men would subject their children to the “dangers” of their profession with their own children. To me, feeding a croc was no different than if a professional helicopter pilot were to allow his child to ride in the passenger seat, or an experienced sailor taking him out on a boat, or even the common man letting him pet the family Dalmatian. Confidence arises from experience and knowledge--we fear crocodiles as being monsters, but this is simply not the case, and Iwin knew this better than anyone else in the world.


 
To expose someone in a danger is only excusable if you get something positive from it. The example of the pilot that you exposed is good... if the child understand something of what is going on and can learn and make an experience of it.  But no just because.

I wan't to say something more. Everybody make something wrong in his life. Maybe is the only thing wrong that he did in his life, but it was wrong. You maybe want to excuse him because "he did so many good things". That is very good and I beleive you passion for his life's work. I don't think he was stupid. I don't even think he was mad. But it is very difficult to respect someone when he plays with the life of a baby "just because".


----------



## Olegaria

heidita said:


> I knew him from The Tonight Show, where he took the weirdest animals to attack and pee on the host (it really happened!) and you could see the love he felt for them and the life he led. I think he was remarkable though a bit crazy. I don't think we can say he paid for his craziness though, he just died where he would have liked to die. Probably not so young, but doing what he loved most.



Heidita you are a romantic. How do you know he loved animals?

I dont want to seem harsh, not hurt your feelings, but I did not like the way he 'played' with wild animals.

He behaved and spoke like 'a big kid'.  Eternally dressed in shorts and talking like a 6 year old boy in such an irritating style.  Did you ever notice?  Some people so it when they talk to older people (they think they are deaf), or to people who dont speak the language as if in this way they  will understand.  It may well be an unconscious response, but it is an arrogant one nevertheless.

It saddens me to see this overreaction, almost on a global scale.  What does it say about us?  Are we regressing into childhood or what is it?


----------



## Alxmrphi

It was about him being a loveable character more than anything else, he liked to get his points across to kids so that is the image you saw.

I'm sure you have better things to do than be saddened by this "(over)-reaction".


----------



## Olegaria

Alex_Murphy said:


> It was about him being a loveable character more than anything else, he liked to get his points across to kids so that is the image you saw.
> 
> I'm sure you have better things to do than be saddened by this "(over)-reaction".



Hi Alex,

Yes, you are right: when I wrote ' sadden'  it was a figure of speech. But, on the other hand I'd prefer that he were alive, that is for sure.  I did not hate him, just did not like his ways.

You agree with me then: he was great with kids.  So why so many adults overreact in such an emotional way?  I ask again:  are we (as society) regressing into childhood?

Best wishes


----------



## boardslide315

pedro0001 said:


> I wan't to say something more. Everybody make something wrong in his life. Maybe is the only thing wrong that he did in his life, but it was wrong. You maybe want to excuse him because "he did so many good things". That is very good and I beleive you passion for his life's work. I don't think he was stupid. I don't even think he was mad. But it is very difficult to respect someone when he plays with the life of a baby "just because".



Ok, I will compromise and say that there was no "good" reason to do what he did...but my main annoyance with the controversy that arose is that the vast majority of the population is completely ignorant about crocodiles. Irwin was not simply some maniac that didn't think before he acted; while the act may have been better left undone, the extreme outrage that so many felt was for the most part unjustified. 

Perhaps I am a little more sensitive to this being that I live in Florida, a place where there are over a million alligators and where ignorance about these creatures is especially high because of the occasional death of a dog or child. People base their opinions on these rare and unfortunate accidents, and take no time whatsoever to look into more unbiased information. And this brings me to my next point...



Olegaria said:


> How do you know he loved animals?
> 
> I dont want to seem harsh, not hurt your feelings, but I did not like the way he 'played' with wild animals.



Steve Irwin knew that in Australia, most people feared crocodiles and snakes out of ignorance, nothing more. They knew very little about them, and everything they knew came from the horror stories on the news. This is why he did what he did every day at his zoo, and is also why he agreed to film a show. It was his hope that by “playing” with animals as you call it, he could reduce some of this ignorance. He hated the nature documentaries that did little more than film these animals from 100 feet away, and so began his revolutionary approach. By holding venomous snakes in his hands without the use of gloves or tools (and doing it this way for almost 30 years without a single bite I might add), or relocating crocodiles without using drugs or causing harm to the animal of any kind, he hoped to show the world that we can learn to respect rather than fear them.



Olegaria said:


> It saddens me to see this overreaction, almost on a global scale. What does it say about us? Are we regressing into childhood or what is it?


 
   Has society really reached the point where we automatically associate passion and enthusiasm with immaturity?


----------



## Trina

maxiogee said:


> Don't you mean a quadruple "if" there —
> *if* the crocodile had moved quickly on land (it was in the water when it jumped),
> *if* he had stumbled,
> *if* he had stumbled in the one direction which favoured the crocodile, and
> *if* he had been too close?



and *if* the _other_ crocodile handlers (just off camera) ....

Sometimes, the camera is deceptive.

There was another piece of footage where Steve dangles baby Bob at the water's edge, and a crocodile can be seen nearby. To the viewer, because of the camera angle, it appeared that the crocodile was in snapping range but in fact was nowhere near them. 
(I was going to say "safe distance", but that is subjective; to some, being in another country would be a "safe distance")
Again, Steve and Bob were not alone with the crocodile. There was another handler present. 

The mistake,  perhaps, that Steve made was not one of putting his son in danger, but more of putting himself in a situation which the media could exploit.


----------



## maxiogee

boardslide315 said:


> Has society really reached the point where we automatically associate passion and enthusiasm with immaturity?




A stunningly worded notion.
Ooooooh how I wish I had said that.  
This one thought needs a thread all to itself!


----------



## Paddykat

I would just like to say that I do not believe Steve Irwin would EVER do anything that he believed for a split second might cause harm to his children.  Taking his son into the crocodile arena was business as usual for him.  That's his life.  It will be baby Bob's life.  He took Bindi into the crocodile arena at that age and many times since.  She is one of the most healthy, intelligent, and well-adjusted children I've ever seen or heard of.  Steve should not be judged by average person standards.  He and his family were/are NOT average.  They are a lovely and UNIQUE family and that should be taken into consideration rather than judging them harshly.


----------

