Steve Irwin: The man's dead, stop picking on him!

The BBQ Pit
121

I most certainly am within my area of expertise. I have first-hand on-the-ground experience dealing with the poaching issue in developing countries. At one time I was in charge of a protected area in Panama in which we worked closely with local rural communities to control poaching within the reserve. (And I still work with the people who manage the reserve.) Information on local poachers was often obtained by our game wardens from other locals who supported protection of wildlife in the reserve and who disapproved of what the poachers were doing, and this was even without the incentive of sustainable harvest. Our reserve is the protected area in Panama where poaching is best controlled, and support from most of residents the neighboring communities is a big part of that. I have also worked with other rural communities in Panama to promote sustainable use of protected areas through tourism and other activities, and to control illegal clearing and poaching. Besides that, my guides in remote areas of Panama have often been poachers, so I think I have some insight into their motivations.

I have also conducted surveys of gamebirds in areas subject to hunting pressure in both Panama and Gabon. I have provided recommendations on the subject of hunting of game species to the governments of both countries. I am familiar with the literature on sustainable harvest and its potential impacts.

What exactly is your expertise on the subject?

Those with further interest may wish to consult this reference for a recent overview of information on the subject: Hunting for Sustainablity in Tropical Forests..

In other words, you are completely ignorant on the subject and don’t really care what the truth of the matter is. You clearly also know nothing about poaching in the US or anywhere else.

Poaching in the US of course still exists, but it is not a threat to the continued existence of any species except perhaps in the case of the very smallest local populations. It is a quite minor problem with respect to species conservation. A large majority of Americans, including most hunters, support hunting regulations. Controlled hunting of course is a form of sustainable harvest.

White-tailed Deer and Wild Turkey were almost extinct in most of the eastern US in the early Twentieth Century. Enforcement of hunting regulations and the insititution of strict limits on harvest have not only brought them back, they are now virtually a plague in many areas. (And the fact that they are a nuisance is because sustainable harvest is not permitted in many areas.) Ducks Unlimited, which is basically an organization of hunters who support wetland conservation in the interest of having game available, has also been a tremendous success story for sustainable harvest. Many duck species in the US have increased in recent decades after having been overhunted in the past. If sustainable harvest of these species was not permitted, there would be much less incentive to conserve them and their habitats.

122

Just a question about croc molestation:

Have those buggers got enough going on upstairs to experience what we might characterize as “molestation”? I mean, can one technically cause a croc or a snake to have feelings of “fear” and “dread” that are in any way analagous to what mammals more-or-less like ourselves experience? OK, so Steve tackles a croc and rolls around in the mud with it. Quite nuts, I’ll readily grant, and thoroughly inadvisable as a hobby. But after the croc is released, does it really even have the capacity to care? Is it any more or less fearful of the next human it encounters? Does its behavior among non-human threats change appreciably? I don’t want to minimize any damage to the animals Mr. Irwin might have done, but after grabbing a poisonous snake or wrestling a crocodile or whatever, quite reckless things to do for any of a variety of reasons, can one expect the animal to be much worse for wear if it hasn’t been physically harmed?

123

It would be pretty difficult to assess the “emotional state” of a reptile. However, since reptiles possess an at least partially-developed limbic system, a part of the brain concerned with emotions such as fear, I see no reason they don’t feel something akin to what we call fear. And they are certainly capable of learning. When I first came to Panama more than 25 years ago, the local crocodiles in Lake Gatun were considered no threat and would almost always flee from humans. Hunting pressure seems to be much less nowadays, and the crocs are much bolder. There have been several recent attacks, and it is no longer safe to swim in the lake.

124

Interesting. Could the lack of predation and resultant increase in population be limiting food supply, i.e., could inhibitions the crocs would normally display be overridden by hunger, such that they’ll attack larger prey out of necessity? Is this in fact a learned behavior, or just a manifestation of an innate behavior driven by other environmental factors other than an aquirable drive to evade hunters?

125

I doubt very much it has anything to do with food supply. The lake is still full of tons of fish, which is what the crocs mostly eat, and their density isn’t all that high. It’s just that in the last few years I have heard of a number of attacks on people (one fatal) and pets, and decades ago these were pretty much unheard of. It seems to me they are becoming less shy of humans and willing to make an opportunistic attack.

126

OK, thanks for your answers!

127

I like to use “clearly,” too. You can say anything you want after it, and a lot of people won’t notice that you’rte just making a bald assertion.

You’re post does not demonstrate how any of this relates to the Zimbabwean Farmer in Blake’s hypothetical. A lot of things worked once in Panama. Applying them to other countries has produced mixed results at best. Did the people you worked with recently come to control their land through an acrimnious and often bloody land reform program? Has the individual responsible for the program staked his personal credibility, as well as the credibility of his party, on its success? Have the former owners predicted that the program will fail because of the superiority of one race to another? Does the current farmer possess a lease from the government, rather than outright title to the land? All these things make it impossible for the farmer to retire his land and turn it into a game preserve, as Blake seems to be suggesting. So he will have to continue working the farm while sharing ti with two leopards who seem to like his goats. It would be hard not to sympathize if the farmer considered this situation intolerable. At the very least, he would have to hire mento do the tasks his children would ordinarily do. Of course, the first product of any land reform campaign is a scarcity of farm labor. It seems like it’s a whole lot more expensive to allow those other two leopards to live. So I would humbly suggest that the answer to Blake’s two questions are, “three,” and “three,” respectively. I would appreciate it if you might show me where I’ve reasoned incorrectly, assuming of course I have the credentials to ask.

128

Saoirse, to steal a line from Billy Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Now, again, STFU and GBTW you wank.

129

Loopydude - I think I have some personal experience that indicates that reptiles are capable of experiencing something akin to emotional trauma. During the 70s, I worked part-time for a venom laboratory. The lab bought most of its snakes, but when we had contracts for venom from snakes native to the eastern US, several of us would collect specimens ourselves on week-long excursions, usually to the southeast. Snakes which were captured by pinning them, that is by pressing their heads against the ground with a snake hook and grasping their heads tightly, then flinging them into a bag, were much less likely to eat voluntarily back at the lab than snakes captured by gentler means. Also, snakes which were regularly milked almost never ate voluntarily but had to be force-fed. This is not a scientific study, obviously, but I always attributed the refusal to eat with the stress of the capture method and of the venom extraction process.

130

Oh, all you were doing was arguing about a hypothetical example? Debating the details of an offhand hypothetical case (as I believe Blake) meant it to be) here is rather pointless, since anybody can just throw out opinions (as you are doing here). If Blake actually had in mind a specific program in a specific place, you’ll have to argue it with him. Good luck on that.

I have mainly been speaking to the more general proposition of the value of sustainable harvest, and the fact that community and individual economic interests can promote conservation if coupled with an enforcement program. I am not particularly interested in debating the details of one particular hypothetical case, especially not here.

Are you contesting the main point, that sustainable use of wildlife resources has a place in conservation planning? That’s really the only reason that is under discussion here in relation to Irwin. Blake raised the issue here:

As I’ve said before, I am not personally familiar with Irwin’s stance on the issue. If Blake’s characterization is accurate, then I would have to call into question his seriousness as a conservationist on a broader scale. There is little hope of conserving wildlife in developing countries unless economic rewards for doing so can be transferred to poor people in rural areas, and sustainable use is one of the tools for doing so.

131

I am not a biologist or conservationist or, really, do anything related to the fields being discussed. However, it was stated upthread (I believe by Blake) that “spiders and snakes are not apex predators”.

I was curious as to the meaning of apex predators, googled it, and found that some snakes are considered as apex predators by some people - particularly the highly venomous species.

Example: “…the apex predator, the Stokes sea snake (Astrotia stokesii).” from here

“Large snakes such as the Green Anaconda and Reticulated Python are deadly superpredators.” from Wikipedia

I’ll recognise that “apex predator” and “superpredator” may have slightly different biological meanings, but considering Irwin tended to try to bring things to the level of the layman, I think the distinction might not be so important. I’m having trouble finding a good cite, but I can imagine that in certain ecosystems, a venomous spider would be somewhat apex too - I mean, the venom is there to discourage predation, isn’t it? So seeing as how Irwin was most interested in the dangerous (venomous and poisonous) species, then his quote about “My field is with apex predators, hence your crocodiles, your snakes, your spiders.”

As for sustainable harvesting… I just wonder, considering the size of Australia and my sense of it’s population (and I admit I might be totally misled on this) that perhaps Irwin’s argument was more along the lines of “we shouldn’t need sustainable harvesting because we shouldn’t be using all the land in this manner in the first place”? That was sort of the impression I got of his points of view - I remember watching one show where some baby animal (maybe a turtle?) got caught in a human footprint and had to really struggle to get out (of course, that footprint may have been from Irwin himself, or from one of his crew, but it always saddened him when humanity interrupted the animal world). I’m not trying to argue the quotes given here, but in light of that emotional reaction from him, perhaps they make a bit more sense?

I found him entertaining. He was funny and enthusiastic, and I always enjoyed watching his show (and it was the only show that my cat ever watched… other than Jack Layton talking on TV!)

“Intimiate and terrorrize” animals in the wild? Yeah. Maybe. But then again, if no one picked them up to look at them, we wouldn’t know much about them either. You can’t get these animals in front of a camera without getting in their way, can you? So I end up a bit torn about how I felt he handled them. It was dangerous, but it also did teach a lot.

132

Snakes in general are not apex, or top, predators, which means that pretty much nothing else preys on them. Almost all snakes are preyed on by mammals, birds, or other animals. The very largest snakes, such as anacondas, are probably top predators, but they are the exception. Spiders are never apex predators. Even big venomous tarantulas are preyed on, sometimes by insects, such as the Tarantula-Hawk wasp.

In terms of wildlife shows, you learn far more by leaving the animal to perform its natural behavior rather than disturbing it or capturing it. Planty of wildlife shows have done that, and many have done so without “getting in their way.” You don’t need to catch animals to teach people plenty about them.

133

Thanks for that also!

134

Sorry, but when a conservationist puts down a fellow conservationist who has educated me and millions of other ordinary people more than any other conservationist, I take exception and look for contradictions.

For example, humans are preyed upon by bacteria and other parasites. We are also preyed upon by lions and tigers and sharks and bears and pitbulls to name a few. Does that disqualify us as an apex species ?

135

My bolding.

No, it’s there to *support *predation…

…by the spider.

136

With all due respect, if Steve Irwin has educated you more than any other conservationist, I sincerely think you need to broaden your horizons. There are far far better people speaking on conservation out there.

“Predator” has a specific meaning in ecology, indicating species that kill other species outright (normally considered to be animals, but sometimes used in senses such as “seed predator”) in order to feed on them. Organisms that don’t usually kill their food source all at once are generally called parasites. These are usually much smaller than their food organism. (Some insects that parasitize other insects kill them very slowly but inevitably, and are called “parasitoids” since they are predators with some of the characteristics of predators.) If they consume plants they are considered herbivores.

A top, or apex, predator is generally considered to be an animal that kills its prey outright, and is not the normal prey of any other predator. Under primitive conditions humans would not be top predators, since we were regularly preyed on by other predators. Under modern conditions, we are top predators, since humans are only rarely killed by other animals. (Occasional or aberrant predation, as in the case of pit bulls, doesn’t count.)

137

No, Colibri is, amongstr other things, a conservationist. Irwin was a glorified zookeeper. And if Irwin taught you more than others, say Durrell or Attenborough, then all I can do is pity you. Watch something by the* BBC* rather than Animal Planet, for fuck’s sake. I recommend the Life in …(the Freezer/The Undergrowth/etc.) series for a start. See a real TV naturalist at work rather than a croc-felcher.

138

Where do these amateur nitwits keep popping up from?

139

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Sharks and pitbulls.

You got them in the wrong order. Probably the source of your confusion. Hope this helps. No need to thank me.

140

Amatuers are everywhere , Nitwit. What is your profession ? Biologist ? Did I make an assertion in that post that is untrue ? If so, prove it. I’m sick and tired of assholes like you that gratuitously put down posters just because they don’t like what they have to say. Reminds me of my time in elementary school.