Crikey!
Yes, crikey indeed. Steve Irwin, more popularly known as Crocodile Hunter perished a few days ago when he got too close to a stingray he was filming and it swung its tail in self-defense, the barb at the tip of its tail piercing straight through his heart. It was an unusual way to die. Stingrays are usually very docile and from what I've heard from news reports, he is the third person to have died from a sting ray attack (perhaps in Australia only) for more than a century. For a man that handled crocodiles and venomous snakes with ease, this seemed almost a joke played by nature.
Steve Irwin was an ardent conservationist, inspired by his parents who were conservationists before him, and his dream was that his children follow in his footsteps, which they very well may. Founder of the Australia Zoo, he fought for conservation at every turn and it was largely due to his efforts that the Australian government shelved a proposal that would have allowed legal, safari-style hunting of crocodiles.
He is every conservationist's hero, because he was able to take the science and education out of scientific journals and university classes and present wildlife education in a way that made the ordinary layman care. He was an indispensable ally to conservation in the public arena. Which is why the following article has infuriated me beyond belief.
'The animal world got its revenge'
This has to be among the most trashy, despicable articles ever written. Germaine Greer goes beyond outrageous in this opinion column. Here are some of her assertions and my reply.
"What seems to have happened on Batt Reef is that Irwin and a cameraman went off in a little dinghy to see what they could find. What they found were stingrays. You can just imagine Irwin yelling: "Just look at these beauties. Crikey! With those barbs a stingray can kill a horse." (Yes, Steve, but a stingray doesn't want to kill a horse. It eats crustaceans, for God's sake.)"
Well, yes, that is the point of a documentary isn't it. See that's the reason why Irwin is popular, and Germaine Greer's feminist novels gather dust (and perhaps insect feces as well) on library bookshelves around the world. Which leads me to the next point.
"What Irwin never seemed to understand was that animals need space. The one lesson any conservationist must labour to drive home is that habitat loss is the principal cause of species loss. There was no habitat, no matter how fragile or finely balanced, that Irwin hesitated to barge into, trumpeting his wonder and amazement to the skies. There was not an animal he was not prepared to manhandle. Every creature he brandished at the camera was in distress. Every snake badgered by Irwin was at a huge disadvantage, with only a single possible reaction to its terrifying situation, which was to strike."
You see, if you don't go into an animal's habitat and film it, the world is never going to know about it. They certainly aren't going to waste hard earned money on Greer's books, if she ever bothered to put anything useful in them. It's all well and good to sit in a London office and state emphatically that wildlife habitat is for wildlife and should be left undisturbed.
Unfortunately, this is the real world (and Greer accuses Irwin of self-delusion!) and things don't work that way. Your ordinary poacher or livestock grazer or drunk rifle-toating entertainment seeker isn't going to respect the boundaries that you drew in your head or on paper. In order for wildlife conservation to have an effect, you need to have real protection on the ground, which involves entering habitat in itself. Further, to get the funds to have that protection, you need to convince people about the cause of wildlife, which Steve Irwin dedicated his life to. While the wildlife may theoretically be a lot happier without human intrusion, without Steve Irwin entering their habitat and promoting their cause to humanity, there wouldn't be any wildlife. Just ask Australia's crocodiles, which were given a new lease on life as I said before due to Irwin's immense popular appeal and efforts.
Ultimately, this is just once again proof that things always don't turn out right in this world. I'm sure the vast majority of humanity would have exchanged Germaine Greer's life a hundreds times over in order to have Steve Irwin back. The Crocodile Hunter did so much for the world, and I am sure his legacy will live on. As for Greer, she is a sad, pathetic failure in life who would be worth more in nutrition if she fed herself to a crocodile today than she would ever amount to in the rest of her life.
Steve Irwin was an ardent conservationist, inspired by his parents who were conservationists before him, and his dream was that his children follow in his footsteps, which they very well may. Founder of the Australia Zoo, he fought for conservation at every turn and it was largely due to his efforts that the Australian government shelved a proposal that would have allowed legal, safari-style hunting of crocodiles.
He is every conservationist's hero, because he was able to take the science and education out of scientific journals and university classes and present wildlife education in a way that made the ordinary layman care. He was an indispensable ally to conservation in the public arena. Which is why the following article has infuriated me beyond belief.
'The animal world got its revenge'
This has to be among the most trashy, despicable articles ever written. Germaine Greer goes beyond outrageous in this opinion column. Here are some of her assertions and my reply.
"What seems to have happened on Batt Reef is that Irwin and a cameraman went off in a little dinghy to see what they could find. What they found were stingrays. You can just imagine Irwin yelling: "Just look at these beauties. Crikey! With those barbs a stingray can kill a horse." (Yes, Steve, but a stingray doesn't want to kill a horse. It eats crustaceans, for God's sake.)"
Well, yes, that is the point of a documentary isn't it. See that's the reason why Irwin is popular, and Germaine Greer's feminist novels gather dust (and perhaps insect feces as well) on library bookshelves around the world. Which leads me to the next point.
"What Irwin never seemed to understand was that animals need space. The one lesson any conservationist must labour to drive home is that habitat loss is the principal cause of species loss. There was no habitat, no matter how fragile or finely balanced, that Irwin hesitated to barge into, trumpeting his wonder and amazement to the skies. There was not an animal he was not prepared to manhandle. Every creature he brandished at the camera was in distress. Every snake badgered by Irwin was at a huge disadvantage, with only a single possible reaction to its terrifying situation, which was to strike."
You see, if you don't go into an animal's habitat and film it, the world is never going to know about it. They certainly aren't going to waste hard earned money on Greer's books, if she ever bothered to put anything useful in them. It's all well and good to sit in a London office and state emphatically that wildlife habitat is for wildlife and should be left undisturbed.
Unfortunately, this is the real world (and Greer accuses Irwin of self-delusion!) and things don't work that way. Your ordinary poacher or livestock grazer or drunk rifle-toating entertainment seeker isn't going to respect the boundaries that you drew in your head or on paper. In order for wildlife conservation to have an effect, you need to have real protection on the ground, which involves entering habitat in itself. Further, to get the funds to have that protection, you need to convince people about the cause of wildlife, which Steve Irwin dedicated his life to. While the wildlife may theoretically be a lot happier without human intrusion, without Steve Irwin entering their habitat and promoting their cause to humanity, there wouldn't be any wildlife. Just ask Australia's crocodiles, which were given a new lease on life as I said before due to Irwin's immense popular appeal and efforts.
Ultimately, this is just once again proof that things always don't turn out right in this world. I'm sure the vast majority of humanity would have exchanged Germaine Greer's life a hundreds times over in order to have Steve Irwin back. The Crocodile Hunter did so much for the world, and I am sure his legacy will live on. As for Greer, she is a sad, pathetic failure in life who would be worth more in nutrition if she fed herself to a crocodile today than she would ever amount to in the rest of her life.
posted by Vivek at 10:55 AM
5 Comments:
Happy Birthday Vivek! :) Been wondering how you are. Hope you have an awesome time - and see ya soon!
oh BTW, this is alice.
Hey Alice. Thanks for the wishes. I have had a fairly good time until now. Anyway, please keep commenting on my blog besides birthday wishes when you get time.
Hi Vivek, first of all, sorry to know that Steve Irwin is no more. He's probably the most visible animal-enthusiast and wildlife expert, whom I have watched on several occasions. Didn't know however that he died in those circumstances. I have often wondered how he manages to film the animals in the adventurous way that he does. Quite unfortunate he had to give his life doing that one day.
Regarding criticism of the criticism of Irwin's ways, I am not sure it is as unequivocal as you put it to be. I am no expert on this. But I wouldn't risk my 1 year old in a hungry crocodile's area. Almost reminds of Michael Jackson's holding up his baby from a high story building from a balcony.
Hi Ravi. Yes, you're right. The 1 month old child (yes, it's far worse than what you thought) incident was irresponsible. But going back and seeing some of the stuff that he said on tape, I actually do believe that he had managed to convince himself that he could hold the crocodile completely at bay.
He obviously knew how to handle animals. No one could survive what he did otherwise. But as his death proved, wild animals are just that, wild. No amount of expertise can guarantee that things will go as you expect. I would hope that he realized the folly of that incident (carrying his child) later or at least other family and friends would have impressed on him that. He didn't do it again after all.
Even in my work place, some people haven't liked him because they say he manhandled animals in the name of research. Well, unfortunately, that's the way you get the message out to people. If everyone keeps talking about chi-square values and population models, nothing is ever going to get saved because the vast majority of humanity will remain uneducated about it.
Post a Comment
<< Home