List Members... I thought this would push some buttons and was just waiting for someone to comment.
First, I don't think Steve Irwin would care too much about people that are saying negative things about him. I'm certain that he caught enough heat through the years from a variety of directions, the negative comments made on this list have been mild. I saw someone from PETA interviewed on MSNBC the other night and while PETA has probably done some good over the years, the guy was almost commenting with some pleasure that Irwin died doing what they were opposed to. It is probably safe to say, with a few exceptions, that extremist approaches to any cause don't produce the positive results that could have come with another approach. I keep a lot of captive bred sub-tropical/tropical animals and do use them in presentations to a variety of audiences ranging from young school kids to adults. This includes an American Alligator (by far the best crocodilian, if you want one to "tame-up" one). Do I like captive animals, no. It is unfortunate that we have to enlighten people using such props. It's too bad we have zoos (although today, many are doing things that zoos of a couple decades ago, were not considering). I've been approached by people who see my poison frogs in tanks or my macaws with clipped-wings on their perches and have complained to me. They have a valid point. I call them "sacrificial lambs" and I can only say that they are cared for meticulously and seem "happy". We can argue that point forever I suppose. Have they served a purpose.....no doubt about. We've also made a bit of money by using them. I think most educators would agree, you have to ham some things up to get to your audience. I suppose we could just read our notes or read out of textbooks and give our tests and be done with it? I was lucky to have grown up in the county and started snake hunting when I was about 4 or 5. My parents were into it and thankfully it was passed to me. I believe as Irwin said on a Larry King Live show, it is a gift. I don't think you can fake the enthusiasm this guy had for the natural world. Even if he hadn't become a hit, I really think he would have pursued his "calling" in some way, shape or form. I don't think that money was his main motivation. I am sometimes quite surprised by biology educators and educators in general I meet across the country who have been deathly afraid of snakes and even have heard phobia stories about birds. We're all used to snakes, bats and spiders. Birds? Made a post to a list for HS Bio teachers the other day showing banding patterns of Coral Snakes vs. Milk Snakes in the n. hemisphere. I was pretty surprised to get a very nasty e-mail from a Biology teacher telling me I should be more considerate and that she is deathly afraid of snakes. Yes, a Biology teacher! She later e-mailed me off line and found that her husband has to go through National Geographic and cover up any snake pictures so she can read the thing. I can't tell you the number of people I've been able to de-sensitize regarding their fear of snakes, spiders and the like. I really never watched much Steve Irwin until recently. I saw him pull a couple of diamond back rattlers, who were supposedly getting ready to mate out of the bush and hold them up for the cameras. Thought that was a bit insensitive. The croc thing with his child, if he was here today, he might say that was a mistake. Pretty hard to not be attracted to wildlife, if only because of his enthusiasm. I haven't seen a show yet, where he wasn't pleading for saving habitat and conservation. We have to agree that there are more problems with the natural world than we care to think about some days. Maybe it takes a Steve Irwin approach to wake people up? I don't think he's caused to many people to get up one morning and say today I'm going to wrestle a crocodile. Trust me, those teeth are razor sharp. I've been a bird bander with the USFWS since '85. I don't know of too many banders, even casual banders, who haven't had a bird die in a mist net? The rationale has been, well for the sake of the species or birds in general, it's a small price to pay. Sometimes I wonder? We'll never know if any animals were ever harmed by Steve Irwin....I'm going to guess that there were not too many. Over the years I've used a lot of injured and non-releasable raptors during presentations. In Texas it's easy to find rehabbers with a backyard full of hawks and owls. Here in MI our DNR feels that euthanizing them is the best way to go. I couldn't disagree more. It's the loss of a valuable teaching tool in my eyes. I can't help but think that Steve Irwin did a lot more good in the name of wildlife and conservation than he did bad. Thanks. Mike Nolan Call weekdays, evenings and weekends. Leave your phone number/best time to return your call and/or your e-mail address if we are on another line or away from our phones. Sincerely, J. Michael Nolan, Director Rainforest and Reef 501 (c)(3) non-profit ********************************************************************************** "Outstanding-Affordable Field Courses in Rainforest & Marine Ecology" "Spanish Immersion offered in Mexico, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru" Web: http://iwanttolearnspanish.org (being updated for 07) U.S. Office: Rainforest and Reef 501 (c)(3) non-profit P.O. Box 141543 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49514-1543 USA Phone: 1.616.604.0546 Toll Free: 1.877.255.3721 Skype Phone: mikenolan1 Live Chat and Phone MS Live Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Live Chat AOL: buddythemacaw E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.rainforestandreef.org Latin America Office: P.O. Box 850-1150 San José, Costa Rica, Central America Att: Juan Pablo Bello C. Program Director, Latin America Phone: 011.506.290.8883/011.506.822.8222 (Cell)/Fax: 011.506.290.8883 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ********************************************************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tana Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:07 PM Subject: Re: How Steve Irwin Could Have Used Entertainment in a Better Way > 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] >
