FishProfiles.com Message Forums

I personally am saddened by this. He was a fun loving individual who had passion for what he did. A quality rarely seen in most walks of life. I believe he made a solid contribution and impact in the world of wildlife & conservation.

By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.
Socrates-
I happen to have become a philosopher

Heres something I originally posted on myspace.

A fond goodbye to Steve Irwin.


"The Crocodile Hunter" was a name I never much appreciated because I have seen the legacy of real crocodile hunters, and the needless death of proud animals killed for vanity is unforgivable. Therefore that steve chose to name himself as a crocodile hunter was very odd to me. The explanation, quite probably, was that Steve, was so incorridgably positive and enthusuastic about what he did, and that he had such a vigour of belief that he thought he could turn such a term round , and perhaps change its meaning. He was e to foolishnes, this is for sure. No man with two children, responsibility for so many animals, and a loving beautiful wife,who has already made his reputation should really place themselves in danger so recklessly. Steve had nothing left to prove , but so much good yet to do. I wish for their sakes, that he had perhaps curbed his tendancy to interact with dangerous animals just that little bit more.

It was this tendancy that led to him being mockingly named the "Animal Botherer" on more than one occassion. He was without doubt a bit of an animal botherer, and if theres one thing that nature appreciates its a divine right to live without interference. Knowing reptiles as well as I do, it took no step of genuis to realise that steve really was living on borrowed time. It is hugely ironic that he was killed, not by a reptile but by a stingray. It just goes to show, that no man should laugh in the face of death. For some, death is a huge lumbering adversary, and for others death hides in less obvious places.

Even so I find it strangely fitting that steves death was a result, not only of his interaction with the animal, but as a by-product of other peoples interaction with wild animals. An unfortunate event, yet a good reminder to us all to respect keeping your distance from animals with good natural weaponry, even if they arent especially aggressive.

Stingrays rarely sting people in the midsection, except under a certain set of circumstances.It is far more usual for people to be stung on the extremities, like arms and legs, and to be fair, most stingray toxin is not fatal and because people are stung in an extremity, even in a deep diving situation you would be more than a little unlucky to be killed. Deaths by stingray are very rare.

Over the last few years though, eco-tourim has led to large numbers of stingrays being fed from boats, and hand fed by divers. This has led to a large increase of divers being hit in the midsection, particularly around the chest and stomach. Stingrays generally dont sting people since they are fairly shy animals, but over the years of oceanic tourism many stingrays have learned to accept the company of people, and far from being a beneficial thing, this means that they are more likely to get in close, and given that at feeding times they can be both competetive and aggressive this increases your chances of being stung more than ten-fold. The closeness means that stingrays have a chance to better observe our anatomy, and being intelligent creatures, learning new behaviours from experience and observation can happen, and does happen. A stingray that doesnt want to be touched , but still wants the food offered will probably sting to get it, especially when aready aroused in a competitive feeding situation, where they will be made nervous by the presence of other predatory fish. Basically there are habituated stingrays out there that know where to sting us for maximum effect, and know a situation to apply it in. This is not direct aggression on their part, but a situation of advantage for them, brought about by circumstances we have brought into being. Feeding rays for tourist purposes will have to be stopped. So in a roundabout way, steves death is not without a lesson to be learned.

Now the animal bothering conversation is out of the way , I will focus on why not only will I personally miss Steve Irwin, (as you know I am not e to " national outpourings of grief" ) but as to why his loss is to be lamented.

The biggest and most important part of Steves work, as many other natural figureheads before him (like david attenborough and gerald durrell) was his ability to communicate the importance of wildlife preservation. His life risking antics were a means to an end. In these days of hyped media, and low quality broadcasting, he managed to find a way to appeal to youngsters and some adults alike, and while some of the more serious animal lovers and scientists (myself included) will feel that he lacked the purist outlook required to do the job objectively, he still managed to bridge a gap between concern and caring and entertainment. He managed to raise the profile of wildlife and ecology to a whole new generation, which is by any standard , no longer an easy thing to do, and an important and significant piece of work for the welfare of our planet. For this I respect him utterly, even if I did not always approve of his sensationalist tactics. He found a way to bring his passion for wildlife to the the playstation generation, and hopefully even though he did pay a terrible price for what we demanded of him as a presenter, the seed of interest has been planted in many millions of children worldwide, and I hope they remember at the very least what it is to love nature and learn never to betray it as they grow older. Something that david attenborough did for my generation.

There is a fundamental question to be asked here though, and a point of responsibility for us all. Do we really demand that our wildlife presenter take such risks? Do we really want this low entertainment to be the reason we begin to appreciate wildlife? Im not taking anything away from steve, here, he did an excellent job, in difficult times to engage the minds of such a numbed generation, but we need to ask ourselves questions about the kind of figureheads we want, because ultimately, people who take risks for our entertainment can still die, and the risk taking was the part of least importance in steves life, he loved the danger, so that we need not feel too much sympathy for him. The tradgedy is that he will never see the work he started come to fruition, and although he left a wife and children to carry on the work, something they no doubt do willingly, their lives will be all the more difficult for his passing.I think the phrase is "no man should die for television".

This is only a point of relevance I guess, not because of steve himself,as he lived as he would have done come what may, but for those copycat presenters, like nigel marven etc, who have to base their careers on such risk taking. Is this really the standard we want for our children? And is it an acceptable standard for the future of wildlife documentaries. Productions like those the bbc churns out, from Life on earth, to Planet Earth. The Blue Planet etc are of a degree of excellence that is simply not matched by various field adventurers pointlessly risking their lives.

Do we pander to our children , or do we step in and say "Enough of that, you have to take your education with a little more sense, and for the love of nature, not just the danger" . Would it be so bad if we did? Isn't it really our responsibilty to do that?

In the final analysis though, Steves death is a loss, because he will never mature to the guardian of nature he could have become. He will be missed, and was obviously much loved. He himself loved with passion .He just never realised he wasnt immortal I guess, in such mindsets its easy to make mistakes and forget your responsibilities to your loved ones. I for one would not have wanted to experience his dying thoughts as that realisation probably came home to him.

When you get to the pearly gates mate, have a beer on me. Whatever your responsibilities, you did a lot of good , and sometimes that has a price of sadness.

Best wishes to his wife and children, you have a beautiful family in a beautiful place, keep heart and youll never lose it.

Bravo for writing that - a few broadsheet journalists should sit up and take notice of that, not to mention a few politicians ...

Panda Catfish fan and keeper/breeder since Christmas 2002

Although, his over the top demeanour meant I did not watch his television shows I had a lot of respect for the fact that Steve Irwin bought large tracts of land in Australia simply to ensure that the land would not be built upon. I have huge respect for that sort of ethic and passion. Kudos for creting wealth and then putting it to use in an altruistic environmental way.

Two kids he was devoted to are without their dad...
Father's Day and his anniversary fall very close together. It will forever be a very difficult time of year for them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~ My fish blow kisses at me all day long ~~~

When I was younger and his shows were first showing in the US, I loved him. Then I got a little older and saw a different side, the "Animal Botherer" side, and disliked him. Now, after some real schooling, I now see who he really is and what he has done.

Many people may think that what he did was foolish, hasty, and just plain dumb, but if you really look at what he does, he doesn't do anything that he hasn't calculated the risks. In my eyes, he never did anything without first thinking about it. To an untrained individual, it may look like he is just jumping on top of a croc and hoping for the best, but to him, he had plenty of experience to know if he could handle a croc single handedly or if he would need help.

Many people will look at the event where he was holding his child while feeding the big croc. While I don't think that he was doing the smartest thing, he was however taking every precaution to ensure safety. If you compare that video to any other video of him and a croc, you'll see that he is being VERY conservative. He keeps himself a good distance compared to when he is alone. Also, there is nothing behind him. He was at an area where he had plenty of escape room. There are MANY videos of him handling a croc with VERY LITTLE room. Also, the croc knew what was food and what wasn't, so obviously it was a "tame" croc (if you can do such a thing), so obviously it was an animal that Steve had probably worked with A LOT so he knew how it would act...... In short, he calculated the risks and knew what he was doing.

His death is amazingly odd! Stingrays do not ATTACK humans. Humans stung by stingrays are rare. Most instances are from humans stepping on or around the ray, or in the arms/hands while handling a ray and then something happening to startle the ray.

Of all the rays I've seen and dealt with, never have I seen one even attempt to sting me/anyone around me. While diving, every ray I've seen has simple swam off. In captivity, I've dealt with many rays while at work, and many have been startled by my hand cleaning the tank, and never have they shown any hint of wanting to sting me. Most just swim around trying to find somewhere to hide.

As for a stingray trying to sting a vital organ instead of just stinging whatever to protect itself, I find that hard to believe to say the least. First off, an animal cannot learn without experiment what is vital and what is not. Taking large cats as an example, if you believe in evolution, then the ones who attacked the neck of a prey got food easier than those who did not, thus more successful. They did not simple watch the animal and then discover, "Oooo... the neck is the soft spot to attack!!" So for a stingray to find in the last 20 to 30 years that our abdomen is a better spot to attack than the arms/legs is just downright absurd. Sharks and whales (ray's biggest predators) do not have long arms or legs, mainly a big body with some fins. It would just try to sting the shark/whale anywhere to get away. So, if a stingray already knows to attack the abdomen, then why is it only recently an issue for that to happen? Simply because only relatively recently have we started to get this close to them. Before, we would try to avoid the stingray and protect us more, thus our arms and legs were just a good a "target" as anything else. Now that we are getting as close as possible, we can get hit in more vital areas. Take a spitting cobra. When it spits, it aims for the eyes. If a human were to go up to a cobra bother it, and then shield his eyes, and do what it could to protect his eyes, chances of getting hit in the eyes in slim. However, if the human were to get as close as possible to the cobra, and not shield itself, chances are it will get hit in the eyes.

As for Steve's case, he was simply just downright unlucky. I feel so bad for his family, as his daughter will never really get to know him, and his son will only know him through video. I pray for his wife and children that they will get through this troubled time.

Being a senior studying wildlife, this has hit myself and my classmates pretty close to home. Steve Irwin really did a lot to generate interest in wildlife and herps specifically. Most of us in the department can give him some credit for our own interest in wildlife professions. Unlike a lot of TV personalities, Irwin really was a genuine wildlife worker, skilled and passionate about his work. He'd been around wildlife all his life and really had some great expertise. We'll miss him.

><>

Yeah I found the news of this story very sad. I don't know any more about him that what I saw on TV, but he seemed like a genuinely good man with a big heart.

I hope the best for his family and hope that his passion and his big heart are remembered and passed down to his children.


Rick
See all my pictures at Google Web Albums

I am just completely saddened. as a kid I loved his show and what it stood for. My sisters friends dream in life was to one day meet him. I hope she doesn't get too depressed. What amazes me is how odd it is that it came in at just the right position to slip between the rib cage.

-Vincent

Actually, from what I've gathered, the barb actually entered below the ribcage, but at such an angle that it managed to puncture his heart. If this is true, it probably means that his diaphram, gut, and lungs were injured as well, likely diminishing any chances he had at survival.

It would really suck though if the autopsy finds that if he hadn't pulled the barb out he might have survived...

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

I think with the venom that he would have benn killed in seconds anyway. If I am correct, the venom stops the nerves from working properly so it would have stopped the heart from beating.plus a hole in the heart would probably kill you either way.

-Vincent

If it had been a non venemous barb then mebbe leaving the barb in there would have increased his chances of survival.

But I think getting the poisonus barb out of him as quickly as possible was the best thing he could have done, but it obviously wasn't enough.

Last night my roommate went off about how he was an idiot. Made me want to punch her in the face even more than I did before.

><>

An idiot cause he did what he loved to do
An idiot cause he did what he talked about
An idiot cause he spent his earnings preserving what was important to him and the rest of us


Well...maybe he was...he did let me drive !

Yeah, thats happening a lot over here Superlion. *sigh* Rule seems to be that you are required to adore the fellow because if you didn't like him/his methods you can't possibly be honest about your feelings after someone is dead.

There used to be 2 camps. There where those who thought he was a good laugh and a great ambassador etc, and there were those who thought he was a bit of a joke who employed questionable methods. You pretty much loved him or hates him and thats just the way it was. Depending on what circles you mixed in, I'd guess about 1/2 adored him, 1/4 did not, and the remainder couldn't give a hoot either way. What I'm trying to say is that it was no small percentage of people who did not like the character.

Now there are 3 camps it seems. Those who still adore the guy, Those who used to think badly of him but have changed their mind now he is gone, and those who still don't much like him but are boing very quiet for fear of being bullied or abused for being 'un-Australian'.


It bothers me, because either people were lying before, or people are lying now, or the population that actually don't like the guy aren't being given the opportunity to grieve properly because they are not allowed to voice their feelings.

Its not respectful IMO to only remember parts of a person's life and personality. To me that denies their true self and the reasons they are who they are. If people wish to live by the rule of not saying anything unless its something nice, thats perfectly fine, but they should have enough respect of others not to shoot them down in flames should they wish to express a contrary view.


The people who loved him to not have a monoponly on expressing their feelings and grief, and all should understand that everyone does it differently. Myself I make light, make fun, and am generally rather obnoxious, and thats if I like the person. If I don't I'm usually more dispassionate and analytical.


I won't go into it here, I've had enough of people getting defensive and vicious this past week. I didn't like the guy's methods and approach before, and his death has not changed my thoughts on the matter. I appreciate the work he has done for conservation of habitats and wildlife.

I don't want to but, along with the nation, I appear to be grieving too (yeah, that can happen, I looked it up).

Respect for the dead is to be applauded, but so is respect for the living.

For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks. - Terry Pratchett

*nods* Calling anyone "dumb as a box of rocks" - living or dead - is uncalled for, IMO. And those were my roommate's words...

><>

A stingray has sensory organs that allow it to sense minute electrical discharges, even through several feet of sand, or within a sharks body or a humans. Its the closeness and consistancy of contact with humans that means that a ray could get a better picture of our anatomy.I think your assuming that learning in fish has to be multigenerational, but frankly a creature with a highly prehensile organ really needs only to intelligently descern a target of high electrical activity to know it will have hit an effective target. In the human body that would be anywhere that produces a large amount of heat or electrical activity. For a ray to target the heart may be nothing more than a bloody good, not to mention obvious shot. Its a question of range vs time, and perception. In the case of a 220 lb ray, and a target only a metre away (namely steve swimming overhead) the target became clearly viable. Im not entirely convinced it was luck. The creature was stressed, felt its way was blocked by the cameraman , and that was all it took. In fact I find the parallel of this attack on steve, and the way a shark would be fended off similar.Sharks will make passes over stingrays looking for weakness, and to hone the target. I think steve might actually have been attacked because he was cruising rather like a shark. Just as the shark would get a spike in the belly, so did steve.

I have a feeling that steve pulling out the barb might have proved lethal, it would certainly have widened the hole in his heart, and given the blood a route to escape from, and the heart to lose pressure in a high pressure situation, meaning it may not have been able to reinflate with blood. Im not clear on the exact toxicology of bullray toxin, but I know that most rays toxin causes pain quickly , but the lethal effects are far slower, people have died 4 to 7 days after being stung.Leaving the barb in may actually have improved steves chances of survival, but then he simply may not have realised his heart was punctured.Its all by the way now I suppose.

Ultimately, i dont think he was stupid for doing what he loved to do, but I also think that anyone who believes they are in control of a situation beyond any doubt , especially in the presence of dangerous animals is a fool, probably an egotistical fool. Have no doubt that in every interaction with a dnagerous animal you are pressing the button on a lottery result. The odds may be in your favour , but ultimately wherever there is an element of luck (and that would be daily for steve) there is a risk you can die. I think the risks steve took were largely unrequired, especially since he had a family.Like soldiers who involve themselves in conflict not directly involved with home defense, people in other dangerous jobs, and people who enjoy extreme sports who have families, there has to be some serious offset between risk and responsibility. I respect steve for living a life that was exciting, informative, educational, and directly saved the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of animals. His credentials in animal conservation were excellent.

Someone who leaves behind young children, and a mother to be a single parent for a moments entertainment though, is something I will never respect.

Im not saying steve was a good man , or a bad man , but for the sake of a moments moderation his family need never have suffered bereavement.As much as his children may enjoy the fruits of his labours, it would have been all the sweeter for them if they could still enjoy them with him. It would be sweeter for us too. Now to remember their father they will have to watch tv, and live on old memories, or perhaps see him in his work as it lives on. But to them, I doubt it is quite the same thing as having their dad there.

That is the biggest shame of all. The world may mourn the loss of a presenter, but our loss is nothing, absolutely nothing, compared to the loss his children will feel.That is where the root of the matter lies for me.

To me, all the good in the world I could do would be soured if I failed my children, and ultimately, no matter what your opinion on the matter,he will have failed his children in no small way.

What do we want out of people, absent heroes, or living fathers? Better yet living fathers who are heroes, and that is the point. You can do good, you can take risks, but at the end of the day you have to know when to stop. If steve had quit the animal bothering and concentrated on looking after what he had, his kids would still have a father and the world a wonderful conservationist.

Id trade in a few entertainment programmes for the sake of steves kids, and to see his work continued anyday. I think he'd have it that way too if he could have his time on earth over again. There comes a point when a person can become too valuable to risk their life casually or regularly, and with the birth of his children, and his huge media empire and zoo fuelling an excellent global push towards animal conservation, he should have realised he had reached that point.

I think above anything else, that is the message to be learned here. Sane men learn to stop pushing their luck, and the more you have to lose, the more you must take care of yourself, the better to safeguard what you love.

R I P buddy