There is no doubt that Steve Irwin was a very popular entertainer.  We have 
people in the U.S. who do shows with birds that are also very entertaining 
and they also claim to be conservationists.  But at least in the U.S. there 
are laws to protect birds and you normally do not see entertaining , bird 
shows, including raptor shows displaying wild, native birds because it is 
illegal to do so.

Steve Irwin obviously caught the attention of a lot of people and thrilled 
children in particular.  In and of itself, I do not find that problematic.  
At various raptor migration banding stations across North America, including 
Cape May, New Jersey, the Marin Headlands at the north shore of San 
Francisco Bay, and elsewhere, live, wild raptors are displayed to the public 
in a very educational manner with little harm to the birds and with 
education and entertainment value.  I have no problem with programs such as 
these, particularly when there is research value, respect for the lives and 
stress impacts on the animals, and a proper sense of decorum and 
professionalism.

But Steve Irwin, as far as I know, did not conduct meaningful research of 
any kind, and his conservationism was more self-serving than beneficial to 
wildlife in the real world.  And I believe that he went beyond the bounds of 
ethical treatment of wild animals in the name of entertainment.  He went 
grabbing, capturing, wrestling, and displaying any interesting specimen he 
could find for his show.  I don't think this is appropriate and honestly do 
not believe it should be legal.  The manner in which he captured and handled 
dangerous snakes was profoundly appalling, in my view, as he took 
unnecessary risks to himself so as to provide the maximum in entertainment 
value to his viewers.  What a terrible example for children anywhere and 
everywhere, but great showmanship for the juvenile mindset!

Why could he not have filmed the animals in their natural environment, as 
Marty Stouffer or Jacques Cousteau and then perhaps have used his animated 
charisma to entertain the public without necessarily handling the wildlife, 
and while explaining the meaning of the behaviors and rejoicing at the 
beauty and also explaining the conservation needs of the specimens under 
scrutiny?

What Steve Irwin provided to children around the world, as far as I can see, 
was "conservation candy".  It was sweet and appealing, but not particularly 
nutritious.  It is good to love and enjoy nature, but also important to 
respect it.  I did not see real respect in the actions of Steve Irwin, even 
if his disclaimers and words seemed respectful.

Lastly, I do not doubt that some good could come from those antics, but we 
live in a world now where there is what I consider an unhealthy mix of 
entertainment, education, news reporting, and even science.   People 
addicted to television seem to  believe that the Animal Planet channel on 
television provides all the ecological education they need.  When a kid sees 
wildlife on television, they have less interest, I fear, in seeing the same 
animals in the wild, where moments of excitement are much more rare per unit 
of viewing time.  Kids in the developing world may see animals they are more 
familiar with in the wild than American urban kids are, but the total 
package of technology-based entertainment and its inevitable corollary in 
technology-based "civilization" offers a net negative prospect for those 
kids -- ultimately they may sacrifice their natural heritage in terms of 
habitat that can be liquidated in order to afford more technology and less 
nature in their future lives.

It appears that I am mostly alone in this line of thinking.  Perhaps our 
whole "civilized" world has gotten to the point of what Aldo Leopold called 
a "supercivilized" mindset.  We are to the point that we even rely on 
technology and entertainment for our meaningful interfaces with wild nature!
And we seem to believe that the same is good for those who still have intact 
areas of virgin nature to lose.  I think that some of our recent ancestors 
in conservation would roll over in their graves if they saw this occuring, 
but that is the reality of our times.

I am glad that everyone felt free to express their views on all of this, 
even if they completely disagree with me.  At least we have been able to 
maintain a productive,  civliized discourse, and for that I am appreciative.

Stan Moore      San Geronimo, CA      [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to