Irwin

I've tried to wait a while before posting about Steve Irwin's death, out of a modicum of respect. More and more so, the Internet is used as an excuse to say things without a sense of decency or compassion. Anonymity, in whatever form, generally leads to caustic comments. The ability to disagree respectfully goes out the window, and we're left with vituperative diatribes that do nothing to advance the discussion.

I think Steve Irwin's heart was always in the right place. His methods might have been suspect- disturbing wild animals in their natural habitat is always a little iffy- but he meant well. He raised lots of money for wildlife organizations and zoos, especially in his native Australia. So if a crocodile had to be terrorized for a few moments in order to help his brethren, it's probably worth the stress to the crocodile. By the same logic, we capture and track wolves to keep track of them, in order to better protect their numbers in places. I'm sure they don't want to be captured, but it's worth the inconvenience whether they know it or not. I understand the SPCA or some other animal-rights organization called him out on his use of animals to gain publicity- and there's certainly some merit to that- but at least he didn't wrestle them for the sheer fun of it.

I lost a lot of respect for him when he dangled his infant near the crocodile before the crowd at the zoo. I'm sure he thought it was incredibly safe. He's not insane. But I think he overestimated his abilities. Even if there was only a 1% chance that crocodile would attack, it's not a risk worth taking. It's a simple cost/benefit analysis. You risk your life everytime you get in a car to go to work. However, the benefit of going to work and making money is worth the slim risk of getting hurt. Dangling a child near a crocodile carries no benefit- except for the crowd's pleasure, which is pointless- and carries risk. So it's stupid. It smacked of showmanship and turned my stomach. If he wants to risk his own life, that's great. But a defenseless child? That's just plain reckless.

That said, I think his death is more a testament to Nature's power and unpredictability than Irwin's carelessness. One can learn to encounter a crocodile and deal with it effectively time and time again, but a surprise split second near a mostly non-fatal creature can turn out deadly. There's no "standard operating procedure" for animals, and no one can predict with absolute certainty how they'll behave.

I'm fairly sure Irwin wouldn't blame the stingray for what it did. It was simply doing what a surprised stingray does- defend itself. It was just sheer bad luck that the barb hit where it did. Four inches to the left and he'd probably be laughing about it right now. But he wouldn't hold a grudge against the animal. Even though his methods were somewhat flashy and a bit flawed, he always maintained a sense of respect for the animals he encountered.