Here's a compilation of messages that came in during the last day or
so. I think this topic has probably gone on long enough.
David Inouye, list owner and moderator
Wildlife are more than just things to research, they should be enjoyed
and appreciated. How many of us started our scientific careers because
we found something in nature to enjoy and appreciate? Scientists don't
need to be educated, but the public does. When more people understand
the value of wildlife, when they can find enjoyment in nature or an
appreciation of some species or group of animals or plants, then the
task of conservation will be easier. Steve Irwin, and others like him,
help make wildlife accessible and understandable to the masses of people
that our scientific work will never be able to touch. By helping to
relieve the fear that many have of the wild, by educating in a fun and
exciting way, and by showing passion and love of nature, Steve did a
great service. When fear of the unknown is alleviated, then there is
room for enjoyment and appreciation. For this, we scientists should be
thankful.
Kim Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
********************************************************
Dr. Moore,
What more do you want from Steve Irwin before he is considered a
conservationist? Okay, buying up land is not enough. Fair
enough. How about starting up a conservation society, donating to
conservation societies, being the face of conservation societies to
raise awareness, conducting scientific conservation research, and,
most importantly, educating the general masses to conservation needs,
policy, management, etc...?
I think that you are looking for any tiny shred to just discredit a
guy who has clearly made an impact. I think that you are attacking
him on a personal level because you simply dislike the guy. These
are personal grievances, not professional grievances. Fair
enough. Just please admit as much.
I will strongly state that this is only MY OPINION. I realize that
this email and the views herein will not necessarily be those of
others on this list. Just tired of seeing an attack on someone who
clearly had an impact on the world. Don't believe me? This email
thread is proof enough.
Best regards, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
********************************************************
Two words:
Jaques Cousteau
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
********************************************************
I do not doubt that these data collection methods are of value. I'm
just making the point that Steve Irwin's approach may have been
unorthodox to some people but mainstream science also use methods
that causes some truama to the animals they capture.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
********************************************************
On 2nd thought, I regret my post pleading "enough of Steve Irwin".
Fine, let the conversation proceed to its final breath. I was getting
tired of the criticisms.
For my own part, I'll say this. Over the last few years of my Mom's
life, I had the opportunity to sit with her some in hospital rooms
and nursing homes. When she watched TV, the ONLY thing she watched
was Animal Planet. I think she, like me, was entertained by the
inimitable Crocodile Hunter and the creatures he dealt with. Of
course he was an over-the-top showman who seemed to make a living
mainly by grabbing snakes and crocs and enthusing in a massive Aussie
accent--that was his shtick, and he was hugely successful at it. I'm
sure plenty of people who might otherwise have been watching some
cops-and-robbers show or stupid game show instead watched Steve
grapple with interesting creatures and perhaps learned something or
gained a bit of new appreciation for some aspect of the natural
world. Certainly no harm done there for the animal kingdom or for
interest in wildlife and potentially in conservation. As others have
said here, we should all enjoy his level of success. The Crocodile
Hunter is dead--Long live the Crocodile Hunter!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
********************************************************
Thank you for that post. Trying to educate people in ecology is very
difficult. We get zero interaction with the public from most ecologists,
and very little desire to actually bring nature to the public. I can
speak from the perspective of someone whose focus is education, and most
ecologists are unwilling to interact. Might give a talk every once in a
while. The interesting thing is that the more prominent people, the more
active people, those with full schedules anyways, seem to find the
time!
I am thankful for people like Steve Irwin, who demonstrated for
everyone that we can interact with nature, and that while there is a
danger, it isn't something that can't be managed. Yes, you could be
bitten by a snake or a spider, maybe even attacked by a crocodile, but
"nature" in general is still far less dangerous than say DC, or NYC or
LA, or London, or Canberra, where far more people are injured or killed
every day! You bathtub, by the numbers, is probably far more dangerous
than a local woodlot!
Rob Hamilton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
********************************************************
Hello ECOLOG-Lers,
Hoping not to trigger just the kind of e-mail thread I'm trying to
discourage, I'd like to propose that we adopt a policy similar to that
followed over at EvolDir. That is, if a poster wants an answer to a
question, that other folks e-mail that person *directly* and, at some point
in the future, the original poster uploads a summary of responses (if
appropriate). Furthermore, I ask that potential posters ask themselves: is
this really an appropriate post for ECOLOG-L (see comment below about Steve
Irwin)?
ECOLOG serves a great purpose, especially with regards to job & conference
announcements and queries directly related to research (e.g., advice on data
loggers), but there's a bit too much crunk related to topics that are barely
relevant to the ecological sciences (e.g., personal opinions on Steve Irwin).
Just my two cents and, again, I hope not to see 15 "re: Can we move towards
summary responses?" posts to ECOLOG-L by the end of the day.
Best,
Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
********************************************************
This topic has certainly generated a great deal of discussion, likely
indicating that it is less a black/white issue and instead much more
gray. Interestingly, I've agreed with at least a few points in almost
every post. Without commenting specifically on the behavior of either
S. Irwin (I've never seen one of his shows) or T. Treadwell, it seems
that the idea of "respect" is where we should be headed--respect for
individual animals, populations, species, communities, and
nature. This should be the primary theme that ecologists and
educators relay to the public, and it should guide our day-to-day
work as ecologists. In my opinion, much of the current
biodiversity-loss crisis we find ourselves in can be traced to the
public's failure to value nature. For many (most?) people, I fear
that nature is even seen as something that needs to be dominated or
managed (I, also, question much of our need, even professionally, to
manage many protected areas). We need to not only help the public
overcome their fear of nature, but also to help instill a deep
respect for nature that translates to value. The challenge (and
obviously much of the discussion in this thread) is how best to do
this. I would argue that shows and events that fail to encourage
respect for nature, while they are at the same time claiming to
encourage conservation, may be misguided and ultimately doing some
harm. Again, this is not a statement implying any judgment of S.
Irwin-he may have been very respectful. The bottom line is that for
the public to support conservation, the Endangered Species Act, and
protected areas, they need to truly value all of nature, not just
think that it is cool in some very specific situations. Whichever way
we each choose to contribute (research, education, policy) we should
keep this in mind.
Specifically regarding research, I think that although restraining,
handling, collaring, chasing, and anesthetizing free ranging animals
(and I've done all of these things) have produced valuable data and
lead to conservation in some cases, it does not necessarily follow
that this type of research can be condoned or warranted in all
cases. Further, it shouldn't imply that it isn't the responsibility
of researchers to critically evaluate projects that call for these
techniques. Again (and I apologize for sounding like a broken
record), if we are conscious of why we are conducting a study, and
come at it from a place of respect, I suspect that many studies
would not be conducted because the cost (even if it is relatively
low) may outweigh the potential benefits (which may be even lower).
Best,
Robert
_________________________________________________________
Robert Long, Ph.D.
Research Ecologist
Starksboro, VT 05487
(802)434-2766
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
********************************************************
The logical flaw in the thinking by critics of Steve Irwin is in regarding a
temporary disturbance by a wildlife educator as equivalent to potentially
permanent -- even fatal -- disturbances caused by researchers in the field.
Nevertheless, in the case of research, we typically do decide that the ends
justify the means. Frankly, the only reason to do research is that the
inevitable disturbance to a natural or human system is a worthy sacrifice in
light of the knowledge gained -- as long as that knowledge fulfills some
legitimate scientific or social purpose.
Trying to argue that Irwin's work is inappropriate, while it is OK for a
"legitimate" researcher to extract bodily fluids from some terrified wild
animal to study, is hypocritical in the most conservative sense of the word.
Dave
------------------------------------------------------
David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
********************************************************
Sometimes the best management is no management at all.
Steve Herman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
********************************************************
The Ignoble Awards not withstanding, some of the finest junk science
out there is performed (I use that term intentionally) in the name of
"educational television".
Sensationalism sells. In my opinion, in the last twenty years or so,
in the race for ratings and ad revenue wildlife television
programming has become increasingly sensational and exploitive of the
wildlife it purports to care about. Unfortunately, if not wisely
directed (i.e., meaningful informed choices by viewers and or
resulting in credible research), exploitation is just plain wasteful;
the *absolute antithesis* of conservation.
~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
E. Ann Poole, MSc, Ecologist & Environmental Planner
PO Box 890, 741 Beard Rd
Hillsborough, NH 03244
(603)478-1178 [EMAIL PROTECTED] eannpoole.com
~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
********************************************************
Hi
Thank you Brian. I agree so completely with you. I
found as you wrote 'Irwin had something that grabbed
my attention'.
But more importantly for me (and I'm sure millions of
others) he grabbed the attention of my 2 young
children. They watched his shows and we were soon off
to the library getting books on crocodiles (that led
to questions such as: what is the difference between
an alligator and a crocodile?),spiders, snakes etc.
Good on yer Steve Irwin.
My two-pence worth.
Paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
