Sad news.

Steve Irwin killed

Do others see the same ads as I do at the bottom of this page? (Not the link, I mean THIS page...)

What, the Steve Irwin Liquidation Sale?

Those ads can be a bit incongrous...a few months back there was a big death-by-liposuction news flash, and all the ads around the reports were for liposuction clinics. Weirdness abounds, sometimes.

Crikey! This is awful...

I always liked the quirky Irwin and his personality. He spawned so many imitators, but he was pretty fun to watch. Working with those animals can be dangerous and I always found him fascinating (and brave). His show "Crocodile Hunter" got me addicted to Animal Planet for a long time.

Having worked many, many years ago (1984) on one of the Florida Keys (Pigeon Key, to be exact... which used to be a biology research station when I was there... now it's a tourist attraction) with Alvey Marques, one of the first underwater divers to work on a show on a (at the time) fledgling network called Nickelodeon, I can tell you that stingrays scare me silly.

While out at low tide one time, while out exploring, my friend Melissa and I got caught as the tide started coming back in... with water getting waist deep we headed back to shore and a GIANT... and by that, I mean almost 8 foot wingspan (from my memory)... stingray emerged from the sand no more than five feet in front of us and hurriedly swam away... the tail was certainly long enough that, had it wanted to, it could've easily hit one of us right in the chest.

Even diving in the ocean, I was always horrified at the site of them swimming around and I always tried to stay away... but those underwater daredevil teacher/instructors are a bit ballsy... even Alvey, who was my teacher, would go up and pet moray eels that could easily have bitten his head off.

Marine biology fascinated me when I was in high school... that is, until I realized that ocean life is unpredictable and extremely dangerous... obviously, I took a different course in my career after that summer on Pigeon Key...

The article about his death, while informative, kinda... well... I dunno... I understand that it's news like this that depresses many, but I think they were trying a bit too hard to soften the blow of the "accident". First they say he likely died instantly, then they say he was pulled out of the water "unconscious" and was given "constant CPR". Well, he's gone nonetheless and it's sad news indeed.

Steve Irwin... you were a fascinating man... a brave one and a man I admired. You will be missed.

Pigeon Key, for those who might be interested...

This is just terrible news. I always enjoyed Irwin's show and even his movie too! At least he went doing something he loved. Very sad....

This has got to be the least surprising news item of the year. The only thing shocking about it is that the idiot managed to live 42 years. Remember when he dangled his little baby boy above the hungry jaws of a croc?

Well, I don't think that's fair (or respectful of the deceased)... I think the aforementioned stunt (which wasn't as you've described it AFAIK) was a bit foolhardy but I thought he was pretty much exonerated of blatant wrecklessness.

His work brought him face to face with danger on many occasions and some people are indeed drawn to the thrill of danger. Needless to say, deliberately putting yourself in those positions increases the chances of tragedy, and this particular incident was very unfortunate - to be killed by a relatively placid creature after all those crocodile encounters.

I'm no fan but he struck me as being a very engaging and entertaining man who had an infectious enthusiasm for wildlife that made the subjects very interesting for his young audience.

Regarding the story, I agree that it was odd that the producer was quick to deliver a diagnosis that could only have been made by a medical professional or coroner. I was also a bit concerned that the fateful trip seemed to be a spur-of-the-moment thing rather than a carefully planned expedition.

Victor

A little harsh, Marty, don't you think?

Maybe you could simply state that you didn't understand his approach to life and leave it at that. I certainly didn't understand his affinity for risk-taking, but to call the guy an idiot for doing something he loved and needed to do (especially on the day of his death) is needlessly cold-hearted.

I don't know, Marty... more people put themselves at risk from a sedentary lifestyle than Irwin, whose risks were at least calculated.

I suppose he was both a product and victim of our times, when we are no longer content simply to observe wildlife a la WILD KINGDOM, but must now see our show hosts risk life and limb for our entertainment. Irwin made a place for himself in the Bread and Circuses of popular culture that cost him his life. But I don't believe for a minute he was only in it for the money and the fame... he loved what he did and he died doing it. We should all be so lucky.

Are you talking to the mean Marty or me?

I think in retrospect that Steve's baby was safer than Jacko's in that other famous celeb baby dangling incident.
I also think Irwin's antics did a tremendous amount of good, bringing environmentalism to the forefront in a spectacular way and transforming animal study into a cutting edge exciting field.

Was either baby safe?


I think there comes a time in a father's life, especially those putting themselves in high-risk situations, where you got to think, "you know, I have kids now and perhaps I should pull back a little." Those kids are now without a dad, and while I admire him for dying the way he probably wanted to go, the father in me can't help but feel that the whole Croc Hunter act was selfish and irresponsible.

I'm curious to see what the film footage turns up. Mainly, why a benign creature like sting ray would attack. Was it provoked?


marc

Everytime I saw this guy (and it wasn't often), I always felt he was provoking the animals he came in contact with.

Why, for instance, would you jump on a crocodile's back if not to provoke it? Or grab a snake out of its nest?

He must have had a deathwish prodding dangerous animals, reptiles and insects.

Wish fulfilled...

Why did he need to do any of his antics?

To educate the uninformed.

Steve Irwin did more than any other person EVER that I can think of to promote animal awareness... reptiles, in particular, had no greater advocate. His style was big and bold, but always for a great cause... to make people LEARN. (And to entertain... as RHS suggests, in this jaded age, you have to be bigger than life or the pea-brained human race wont even watch...)

I've been a Mobian for many years, but haven't posted much since the old board went down. But I've never been offended by a post until Marty M's today. I'm feeling this death an awful lot, and this stupid remark hurts a lot.

Ignorance hurts, too.

Obviously I'm not glad Irwin is dead, and I'm not saying he had it coming, but there's no way anyone can convince me that his on-camera behavior was anything but reckless and irresponsible. I would think even his fans would have to admit there were times when they saw him provoking a dangerous snake or a lion or a gator and thought, "Geez, that guy's crazy." Like NASCAR, much of his audience consists of viewers who are not as interested in animals as they are in possibly seeing the star get bit. Irwin was aware of that, and he capitalized on it as long as he could--more power to him. I don't recall Marlin Perkins ever acting like Jerry Lewis around dangerous wildlife, and he was on the air for decades, so clearly it isn't necessary to do so to educate a TV audience about the "wild kingdom."

I'm sorry his kids are going to grow up without their father, even if he did at least once put one in mortal danger.

Officially, the recent police report (following a police viewing of the footage - Irwin's death was captured on camera) indicates that he hadn't directly provoked it. He was swimming above it towards something else when it lashed out.

On an unrelated topic a local news article down here made much about Irwin's childhood interest in animals and how he used to continually run from his childhood home to a nearby river. The article mentioned his family home address from years ago, and it's literally just down the street from my flat here in the northern suburbs of Melbourne.

In Irwin's defense, he was at least a real naturalist and very concerned about conservationism and ecology. His on-camera antics still strike me as misguided as well, but after seeing GRIZZLY MAN, I realized there were opposite extremes for similar behavior: Irwin knew actual science facts about animals and shared them with the audience, and worked in a presumably calmer fashion with/for animals off-camera.

Irwin's schtick may have partly appealed to the '90s EXTREME ENTERTAINMENT! tread, but in practice came off as a lot more innocent. I never saw anything sinister in the Croc Hunter routine; it is strange that a man who loved animals with such enthusaism lacked all respect for their "personal space". But he didn't seem to taunt wildlife, so much as behave kid who was so enchanted with a toy he just couldn't keep his hands off it.

Learn what?

That if you poke and prod an animal, it'll probably lash out? That's an educational idea...

I don't buy this for a minute. I don't think he was an advocate at all because if he was, he wouldn't have been prone to jumping on alligators' backs, yanking reptiles out of their habitat, hugging sharks, etc.

This man got rich while, basically, abusing animals (I'm opening myself up on this one).

Does anybody see the karma in his death?

Well I'm sure I speak for a lot of people here when I say I'm appalled by the lack of tact and compassion on display here.

Without addressing specific criticisms, every bulletin regarding Steve's death referred to the "son in peril" incident without judgement or critisism on account of him being pretty much exonerated. It would be crazy to suggest that we know better than him about the element of danger in what he does, and even crazier to suggest that he would willingly put his own son at risk for a photo opportunity.

As for his on-screen antics, these are very much an extension of his persona - a persona tailored to engage with and enlighten children. I am no fan of his but I've found his reportage to be excellent and energetic.

As for the notion that someone who makes a living poking and wrestling animals deserves what he gets - well, apart from the heartlessness of it - it's indicative of the general malaise. Maybe he should have just watched all this fascinating wildlife from the safety of his own armchair, or kept the subjects at arm's length with a presentation wand.

If we were to apply the same logistics to the film world - the remit of this board - are people implying that stuntmen shouldn't risk their lives doing dangerous things for the more shallow purposes of entertainment because they are putting themselves in needless danger.

Never mind the fact that this man - like the aforementioned stuntment - knew what he was doing, took calculated risks, and was an expert in his field. His long career in the face of continued danger is testament to that.

Anyone would think he was doing some kind of Jackass program when it is quite clear that the man had many more strings to his bow as a conservationist and benifactor. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but to besmirch someones good name on the strength of a couple of videobites is regrettable and distasteful.

Victor

For the same reason some people need to dance. Or sing. Or write. Or express themselves through film. Or race cars. Or skydive.

Because to NOT do so would make their lives less. Less exciting, less fulfilling, less satisying. Less worth living.

Don't you need to do anything in your life? Something that others simply woulndn't understand?

Marty, you've done it again! T

hese generalizations border on insulting. I'm no fan of NASCAR, but I wouldn't presume that "much" of the fans are mostly interested in crashes. I understand the point you're trying to make, but they way you're going about it seems close-minded and a bit elitist.

The clip package that the major news networks were using over the last several days weren’t doing Irwin any favors. Nearly every clip featured him antagonizing or agitating the animals he shared the screen with (how many times did they show him sticking a lawnmower at a croc and then jumping into a protective cage?)

I actually believe that he loved the animals that he dealt with, and his way of having fun with the format probably got a ton of people interested in animal welfare that otherwise never would have. He was certainly a bit of a daredevil, and some behavior might have bordered on irresponsible, but I have no doubt that he knew what he was doing and that his heart was in the right place. In any case, death by Stingray is a lot more romantic than being crushed under a pile of Euro-Cult DVDs

Wow.

I can't debate this anymore. Obviously, some of you didn't like him and some of you clearly didn't understand him. I don't have to defend him, so I won't... I'll leave that up to those who are better at writing... like Victor (excellent post!)

I can only say that I, as an animal lover (particularily reptiles) loved the man, his work and his enthusiasm. I'm still greiving terribly.

Irwin was not an educator - he was an exploiter and, unfortunately, that's what did him in...

I think Rick Telander of the Chicago Sun-Times nails Irwin's antics on the head:

Irwin's nature act, sadly, was a crock - Rick Telander

It isn't a matter of not liking Irwin. I'm sure he was a great person.

But, certainly, I don't understand "nature" programs that rely on antagonizing animals for the sake of entertainment.

However, what I did learn from Irwin was that if you hold a poisonous snake in the air by its back end, it'll try to take a bite out of you...as snakes were always trying to do with Irwin.

Irwin wasn't courageous - he was foolhardy.

I've never seen Irwin's show so I can't comment on what he did, but I have always been a firm believer in the "Don't f**k with wildlife" school of nature programming. I don't think I ever watched a Jacques Cousteau special either, but I love the PBS "Nature" documentaries and Marty Stouffer's "Wild America." You know, the ones where they stay out of the way and use long lenses to capture the action?

This thread has made me save 15 minutes every day. Not like anyone will really notice, but that's it for me here.

Thank you Todd for many good years of movie talk.

I just can't handle people with an agenda, poking their antagonizing thoughts into a thread... merely to provoke people who think other than they do.

A couple of points.

1) Somebody, maybe it was Marty, cityed Marlin Perkins as example of an old school TV naturalist who was allegedly content to watch the animals rather than to "antagonize" them. Come now, surely your memory isn't THAT selective! No, Perkins didn't wrestle with the animals himself; he had Jim to do it for him, and a weekly highlight of MUTUAL OF OMAHA'S WILD KINGDOM was Jim wrestling with anacondas (sometimes in slow motion) and other fauna while Marlin stood in the flora and commented on it. Hell, this was a running joke on THE TONIGHT SHOW for, what, decades? Would Irwin have been less objectionable if he let one of his featured mates do the animal wrasslin' the way that Perkins did?

2) Yes, he show-boated for the camera, but more often than not, he did so either with harmless animals or under the controlled conditions. His "Steve gets bit" clips show him getting tagged, usually in the face, by a wide variety of harmless snakes and lizards (and chased over the fence by an emu). Yes, he sometimes deliberately provoked, them, like with the tiny bearded dragon that leaps for his nose. No, he wasn't so inclined to do this with poisonous reptiles or with the big crocs, at least not with wild ones in strange territory.

3) Yes, he did pick up poisonous snakes by the tail and dance about with them, but other than the dance steps and the running commentary, this isn't terrilby different from what almost all herpetologists do on nature programs. Jeff Corwin, the snake guy, the barefoot bushman, they all do this. So does the leading expert on anacondas, who as far as I know doesn't have a program, but whose technique of locating them in the field consists of walking barefoot through the swamp and feeling for them with his toes.

And yes, Irwin did encourage "close" encounters with the crocs at his zoo. So did much of his staff, and so does the staff at similar institutions. The example of Aggro, the big croc that hates lawnmowers, is an example of this. Years ago, the staff discovered that Aggro, unlike the other crocs, was prone to come out of the water and attack when anyone mowed the grass around his pond (a procedure which was necessary, btw; if the grass grew uncontrolled, not only could Aggro lurk in it and be more readily able to ambush anyone who entered his enclosure, but of course then visitors to the zoo couldn't see him). This eventually became part of the "act" at the zoo, just like feeding the crocs is, and visitors line up to see Aggro kill another lawnmower. In his dim way, Aggro might even feel better about himself through this, as it gives him an outlet for his aggressions and lets him show his dominance of his territory. I have a Punching Nun puppet that I let my largest iguana "kill" twice a year, when he's bright orange and aggressive because it's his mating season and he wants to chase me (and any other males) out of the apartment, so he can have it for himself in case any swinging iguana chicks come by. If I wave the damn puppet at him and let him spent fifteen minutes shaking it like a dog with a rat, he comes out of his aggressive season much sooner, having been given a vent for these impulses.

With both the crocs at the zoo and the snakes in the wild, Irwin was making a point that I can also attest to from year and years of owning reptiles (I had 47 different species living in my room when I was 7 years old and was the subject of several newspaper articles). They are remarkable, fascinating, beautiful creatures, but they are also EXTREMELY predictable, and an experienced person, once he or she learns their respective ranges and reaction times, can do this schtick with surprising ease. Yes, there's always a risk, but not as much as you might think.

A komodo dragon or a bull alligator is a fearsome predator, but both can be fended off with rake handles, and can be subdued by five or six humans armed with poles and ropes and duct tape with relatively little risk to either the animal or the people. You can't do this with mammals. Five guys with a rope can't wrestle a grizzly bear or a Siberian tiger or even a honey badger or a large racoon into submission, not without serious risk of being mauled. Mammals react to quickly, have too wide a range and variety of weapons, are too good at close infighting (get past a croc's jaws and he can't do that much to you, something not true of even a housecat) and are too damn smart.

If Irwin had REALLY had a death wish, he would have been approaching and poking wild lions and grizzlies and bull moose and jaguars and hyenas and baboons. But he wasn't. He really did know what he was doing and he knew the range, temperments, and capabilities of the animals he did choose to deal with. Yes, it was a calculated risk, but was it any greater than Jackie Chan's?

Jackie has never, despite his publicity, done ALL of his own stunts (nobody has, not Fairbanks Sr., not Lloyd, not Keaton, not anybody ever), and a few of his on-set accidents have been staged for the outtakes, dating back to at least ARMOR OF GOD (not the one that almost killed him, that was real enough). But he's still done a LOT of risky things and he could have conceivable died at any time. If so, would anyone here be rude enough to say "hey, deserved it!"

I don't think so. Oh, we may say "I'm surprised it didn't happen a long time ago," but we'd say it without rancor and with a good deal of admiration.

Fwiw, Irwin was not, from all accounts, "provoking" that stingray for the camera. Divers swim close to big rays all the time, and people regularly feed them at dive parks. They are normally quite placid animals, and even when they do sting people, the stings are almost never fatal. In this case, the ray seems to have felt itself trapped because the cameraman swum over it before Irwin did, so that it was between the two of them when it turned on Irwin, but even then, it was just a freakish chance that it got him where it did. Rays have neither the intelligence nor the targeting ability to aim for people's hearts, and if it had stung him anywhere else on his body, he would have simply had another scar and another story.

His death isn't even comparable to a racecar driver dying on the track. It's more like Jackie Chan climbing a ladder to fix a rain gutter on his house and falling to his death. Ironic, considering what the deceased did for a living, but not the result of a particularly rash action.

Bravo Ian, that was a brilliant post.

BTW, I'd love to see some of those articles about you as a child- do you have any scanned?

Vincent

Forget the articles, Ian - put up some video of your horny raging iguana on YouTube! That's one of the coolest things I've ever read. I've had a Punching Nun puppet for years and never found that good a use for it.

Actually, the articles would be pretty interesting, too.

I thought Steve Irwin was a complete joke -- until I actually watched his program. I get the feeling that a lot of diehard haters of his work haven't watched much of his programs, either, no doubt staying away because of the allegations of animal (and child) abuses.

I don't have cable, so the only thing I've ever seen is the kid-targeted program CROC FILES, which he hosted with his wife, and which played on Saturday mornings as part of a "Discovery Kids" block. He comes across as a complete goofball, but a knowledgeable one, and his enthusiasm is so infectious that watching the show put me in a good mood for the rest of the day.

Man, he will be missed. I've been sadder-than-expected about this news for days.

-- Peter

Charges of staged encounters and factual recreation have dogged many of the nature programs over the years, dating back to when they first began broadcasting on television. Indeed, some of the reports were disturbing to say the least and involved a number of the TV programs most of us grew up watching.

It is a strange world when programs supposedly meant to educate us on animal behaviour engage in cruelty to do so, all in the name of better ratings.

Here's an article from several years back detailing this:

Violence, lies, and videotape

Steve Irwin did a lot of crazy stuff on his show but I don't doubt for a minute he loved all animals and over the years his boundless enthusiasm probably got more people - particularly young people - interested in the subject matter than some stodgy old fart lurking safe in the distance ever did. He may have only reached 44, but he packed more living into that time than most of us ever will.

Anyone who doubts Steve's love for these animals need only see a fairly recent (over the last year or two?) episode of his show where one the oldest crocs at his zoo passes away and they bury her. Steve is literally bawling and in tears during the burial, and if those tears were fake, then damn, this man deserves a posthumas Oscar for his performance, because they sure looked real and heart-felt to me...

Vincent

I'm amazed by the passion of this thread, even raising to the point of someone quitting!

I feel that part of this is due to the whole "respect the dead" attitude that happens after anyone passes away. If he just got badly hurt I think we would see a lot more criticisms of Irwin's practices than we are now.

In my video store we put up a message about his death on my counter along with his movie. Overall, the response has been pretty constistant. A tinge of sadness soon followed by either "it had to happen someday" or "at least he died doing what he wanted to do."

I'm glad to hear that he wasn't wrestling the stingray.


marc

Two quick things.

1) Ian, excellent post above.

2) I watched Irwin's show and not to see him get attacked. Sure it was just another stupid nature show, if you want real info then PBS's Nature is a much better route. However, Irwin was just damn entertaining, at least for me. A lot of it might have been actting for the cameras, but he seemed to really care about and love what he was doing. I don't think he was egging on death in any way. I will, however, say that I feel a lot worse for him then I do someone like Timothy Treadwell from Herzog's Grizzly Man. Treadwell, to me, seemed to be asking for it. Although, it's really hard to compare the two men.

Ian, I think you really nailed things well with that post. While I'd readily agree that Irwin was certainly a character, I never doubted for a second his intense passion for what he did, and his love for reptiles.

As for that whole incident with his son, I think it's been overblown. I never saw that the child was in danger. This wasn't just some out of touch celebrity dangling his child in the mouth of danger, we're talking about a father who was a highly trained professional and knew exactly what he was doing. Irwin knew what the crowd liked. And he used that to both entertain and share his love for what he did.

Like Richard said, he loved what he did, and died doing it. Not many people get to leave this world like that. It's a freak thing that happened, but such is life. You take a chance every time you get in your car, or try to cross a busy street, or maybe take a shortcut through a bad neighborhood. Life is full of risks. It's one of the very few ways that we ever learn anything or ever truly live.

Some of you guys are padding your arguments by arguing points not in contention. For instance, I never said (nor has anyone else, I don't believe) that:

1. Irwin deserved to die, had a death wish, or "had it coming" (in fact, I specifically stated that he did not)
2. he didn't love and care about animals
3. he didn't promote conservation
4. he wasn't an entertaining personality (I didn't like his show, but I appreciate that others did)
5. he didn't live life to the fullest

My only point was that Steve Irwin often acted recklessly and irresponsibly in the close proximity of dangerous wildlife. If you want to disagree with me there, that's fine, even if he did once feed a hungry croc with one hand while cradling a baby with the other.

A guy enters bar carrying an alligator. Says to the patrons, "Here’s a deal. I'll open this alligator's mouth and place my genitals inside. The gator will close his mouth for one minute, then open it, and I'll remove my unit unscathed. If it works, everyone buys me drinks." The crowd agrees. The guy drops his pants and puts his privates in the gator's mouth. Gator closes mouth. After a minute, the guy grabs a beer bottle and bangs the gator on the top of its head. The gator opens wide, and he removes his genitals unscathed. Everyone buys him drinks. Then he says: "I'll pay anyone $100 who's willing to give it a try." After a while, a hand goes up in the back of the bar. It's an inebriated patron. "I'll give it a try," he says, "but you have to promise not to hit me on the head with the beer bottle."

In my opinion, many kids are in far more danger being driven to school each morning by a road-raged parent.