Okay, I have held my tongue on this one long enough. I think that the people who are bashing Steve Irwin never really liked him or his show to begin with. That said, I would suggest that those who didn't like him probably didn't watch more than a few minutes of his show, maybe only a show or two, and they simply don't "get" Irwin and his approach. Personally, I remember watching a couple of shows and thinking that he was just crazy. If you had asked me my opinion of Irwing after I had only watched a couple of shows, I would probably be agreeing with Moore, Ehmann, et al.
However, Irwin had something that grabbed my attention-- perhaps his seemingly sensationalistic approach, his strange verbage, whatever. I very quickly realized that if I LISTEN to the guy I could learn quite a bit because he was quite a good naturalist and he CONSTANTLY preached conservation. In his shows he strongly supports sustainable wildlife and ecosystem management, conservation, and education. He didn't just say these things, he put his money where his mouth was and bought land for conservation, raised money for his zoo AND various conservation causes, AND he really seemed to sincerely care about trying to educate people. Did he do it like Ben Stein as the teacher on The Wonder Years (old TV show), very boring and devoid of enthusiasm? NO, he did it with excitement and that is what I think makes so many people accuse him of sensationalism. I think that because he educated with style that he turned some people off. To the general masses of folks, his personality is exactly what was (and still is) needed to turn on the light in their mind's eye. As far as I could tell, he made every attempt to ensure that his animals were not harmed. In fact, he went out of his way to save large herps and other animals from humans and human interests. Again, as far as I know, he also used fairly standard capture methods, though I think his snake handling often left a bit to be desired (at least at times). His enthusiasm generated excitement about conservation, and he actually provided at least some education to the masses-- a difficult task, don't we all know? I could go on and on, but I think that I have said enough. Just my two cents on this one, for whatever it may be worth. Best regards, Brian William Ehmann wrote: >Interesting thread and level of response. I'd like to lend support =20 >to Stan Moore's post today. > >"The Croc Hunter" always struck me as a "man vs. nature" contest, =20 >entertainingly scripted to assure Irwin came out on top, and =20 >educational morsels to broaden the audience. Irwin seemed =20 >collectively anointed by desk-bound Homo sapiens to get out there and =20= > >kick a little reptilian butt on our behalf. But rather than elevate =20 >his death to a cultural tragedy, can we just admit he wasn't (and we =20 >aren't) always in control on Planet Earth? > >The show allowed viewers (many representing the next generation) to =20 >embrace what I think are unfortunate mythologies (e.g., nature is =20 >entertainment; nature must be grabbed and subdued; nature is 'beyond' =20= > >my experience; formidable creatures are artifacts). To me, "The Croc =20= > >Hunter" was simply a muscular (and lucrative) elaboration of the =20 >animal story clich=E9s at the end of the evening news meant to amuse =20 >and reassure. > >I was surprised that a comparison to Aldo Leopold was made on this =20 >list. I don't think I am alone in thinking that Leopold is revered =20 >for transcending the old myths, not perpetuating them. > >Dr. William J. Ehmann >Saratoga Springs, NY >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- L. Brian Patrick Ph.D. candidate Department of Biological Sciences Kent State University Kent, OH 44242 USA e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
