Regardless of my thoughts on Steve Irwin, there is at least one big difference between the harassment that Irwin imposed on animals and that imposed by researchers employing the various methods listed by Sharif...we researchers must have our methods approved by Animal Care and Use Committees, meaning that a group of peers and laypeople review our protocols to determine whether the welfare of the animal is endangered, whether the methods are ethical, and that the scientific discovery merits the means used to collect the information. I doubt the the croc hunter had to follow the same stringent guidelines that many of us on the list must go through.
Mike On Wednesday 27 September 2006 03:25, Sharif Branham wrote: > Tana has a really good point. I was very suprised once I learned how mch > trauma a scientist can cause an animal in the name of science. I think > catching bats and birds in nets, removing chicks from nest, opening snakes > and putting tracking devices inside their bodies, cutting notches or holes > in the carpace of turtles and many other common research methods cause as > much if not more truama than anything Steve Irwin did. > > Stan I have to disagree with your statement"..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." > > Steve Irwin had a reserach vessel "CROC1" that was used for doing research. > He was doing ground breaking crocodile research. He was also involved with > shark research as well as the many breeding projects he did at the zoo. He > also preserved a lot of land in the name of widlife conservation. Steve, > along with his wife, also started the organization Wildlife Warriors > Worldwide. > > I wouldn't say he was all that self serving. He had a passion for > conservation and he lived full throttle. > > Sharif > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: Tana Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Tana Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: How Steve Irwin Could Have Used Entertainment in a Better Way > Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:07:03 -0500 > > This has been a very interesting thread. Stan, just to make sure > that I understand you correctly, it sounds to me like your stance is > that the handling of wildlife should be restricted to research > purposes only, and that entertainers/educators should limit their > handling of wildlife to these instances, or observe from afar due to > the possible stress that animals might incur. > > I am by no means a wildlife biologist; however, I have had some > experience conducting research with with frogs, fish, birds, and sea > turtles. I would argue that there is a great deal more stress > involved in these situations than in the temporary handling of an > animal to get interesting, educational and entertaining footage. As > scientists, we clip off toes, put heavy collars around their necks, > bands around their legs, glue radio tracking devices to their backs, > capture them repeatedly, and I know many a herpetologist who has > caught snakes for purposes other than pure research. In fact, I'm > not sure I know one who hasn't:) I am certainly not disparaging the > value of good science... My point is simply that I don't remember > hearing of any animals that Steve Irwin harmed in his effort to > educate and entertain, but I myself have witnessed much harm in the > name of scientific learning. For this reason, I am having a hard > time buying your argument that capturing animals solely for > educational purposes is unduly stressful in comparison to good > scientific research. > > Currently, I am working in Mexico, where just the other day, a farmer > told me that his community has killed as many as six jaguars in the > past five years. They were afraid that the jaguars would start > attacking them. I hear about people terrified that geckos cause > strange illnesses and fevers, and someone came by my house just > yesterday to tell me that I should get rid of all of the plants and > vegetation in my garden because it could attract mosquitos and > snakes. If Steve Irwin holding a venomous snake for 30 minutes > captures the attention of people long enough for them to lose just a > little bit of that fear and need to destroy, well, I'm not sure I see > the harm. > > Tana > > > Tana Wood > Department of Environmental Sciences > University of Virginia > > On Sep 26, 2006, at 4:58 PM, stan moore wrote: > > 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] -- Michael W. Sears, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Zoology Center for Ecology Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901 office: 618-453-4137 lab: 618-435-4190 http://equinox.unr.edu/homepage/msears
