“In general”. I was just saying that some snakes are considered apex by some people in the field, from what I can tell. I’m not trying to fight with you, I’m just saying that certain people will disagree on these definitions, and so for a TV-show aimed at 12 year olds, it might not be a bad simplification. When you get to the university/career level, of course the distinctions matter much more. As for spiders, well, Irwin often changed sentences in the middle, so perhaps the quote was merely a “these are the things I like” quote
Yes, arguably. But I thought it was very fascinating to see the natural behaviour of an animal when it was trying to defend itself, just as it was fascinating to watch it as it was eating, or feeding it’s young, or taking a dump. I’d argue that it does have an educational aspect as well, although I agree that the way Irwin did things was often over the top. I suppose he didn’t need to show the animals in an agressive state, but it was still impressive to see how different animals react to things.
How would a biologist/conservationist/whatever go about studying the defences and stress triggers in a snake or crocodile? I assume they wouldn’t do what Irwin did, but they’d have to find something to trigger that response, wouldn’t they? Dummies? Fake arms waving around the snake’s head? I’m legitimately curious about that, so I’d appreciate if someone could answer it.
But yeah, I totally acknowledge that he was primarily a TV personality, and getting things on camera was a priority more often than not. I can’t say he didn’t love those animals, though. I think it sucks that he’s dead. As I said before, I did find him entertaining.
I gotta give it to Steve. I learned more about sustainable harvesting because of his death than I ever learned while he was alive. Rock on, you animal stingray bait!
I made assertions that I can support. In light of {b]Blake’s** criticism of Irwin’s use of the term “apex predator”, in order to ask a question. I was curious as to how rigorous should the application of this term be for a bona fide naturalist. I was wondering if biologists have to memorize a list of “apex” species or deduce these species by definition.
By all accounts, Great White Sharks are listed as an apex predator. Yet they do get eaten by orcas.
Colibri supported Blake’s criticism of Irwin by informing us that snakes and tarantulas are eaten by other species, including all those “deadliest” snakes.
It seems to me, a layman, that the term “apex predator” is not rigorously defined. I’m trying to explore the degree of seriousness with respect to Irwins use of the term.
“Apex predator” is not even a term usually used by ecologists; a more typical term is “top predator.”* While not rigorously defined, in terms of general use, if Irwin in fact used it for spiders that’s clearly wrong. It’s also wrong for the vast majority of snakes.
*“top predator” gets 162,000 hits on Google, “apex predator” gets about 50,000.
Wow. People who loved Croc Hunter really loved the guy. I never realized just how fanboyish some of his fans are. Dare to criticize him and face their wrath.
I would think that his raising conservation awareness leaves him at a net “positive”. I think that will probably have a bigger impact than the negatives (setting a dangerous example & the misinformation). People will still be pro-conservation long after they’ve forgotten whether spiders are apex predators or not.
The first Steve Irwin joke is making its way across the world. The set-up changes but the upshot is that he should have worn sun screen before the dive to protect himself from harmful rays.
Was he a tall man? I can’t work it out but that has to be a way to make a joke out of one ray saying to another, “Let’s put another shrimp on the barb(ie).”
I find it interesting that some people are comfortable pointing out only the bad things about Steve Irwin while making light of the way in which he died. Yes, he was human and he did stupid things at times, and set bad examples with his actions.That does not negate the good he also did in this world. I’d say in some ways he walked the walk more fully than a good deal of his detractors ever will. I know I probably won’t be able to make millions of dollars in order to buy up large tracts of pristine habitat in several places around the world to be set aside as wildlife preserves. How many of you would live in a modest bungalow and put all the millions you made back into preserving wildlife habitat? (Yes, I’m sure he had some concessions like hiking gear, vehicles etc. However those were also useful in his job.)
I find it interesting how many people seem to feel that it’s somehow inappropriate to criticize public figures, particularly if they’ve done bad things with their time on earth. If I recall correctly, the Egyptians believed that after death, one’s good deeds are weighed against one’s bad deeds, and if the good outweighs the bad, the soul is permitted to continue into the afterlife. So what? We’re not bound to that.
Jesus fuck. I’m sorry for the guy’s family, but this simply does not constitute a tragedy for the world, and all the self-righteous idiots pretending it does need to hush.
Gee, though. He lived in a small house. Congratulations to him.
My point being that it is just as wrong to focus only on the bad things a person did, as it is to deny them and paint a rosy picture of the deceased. Steve Irwin was human. Some of his deeds are worthy of respect, while some of them should be held up as examples of what not to do.
Were you never saddened by the death of a celebrity of any kind Excalibre? Can you not respect that those who liked Steve Irwin’s show (I didn’t really watch it, wasn’t really a fan, but I do respect what he did as far as habitat preservation FTR.) are saddened by his flukey death? Even a little bit?
Sure I can. I can’t respect the people who are trying to claim that Steve Irwin was some incredibly important figure in conservation. I have no tolerance for folks trying to convince me that this dude mattered in the greater scheme of things. But those who are just sad that a celebrity they like died, I’m fine with them.
I haven’t made light of the fact that he died, or how he died, but come on, it’s not like he was Mother Theres…
…what?..
…her too? Are there no saints left?
Seriously, I can appreciate that Irwin did some good (although I question the positive impact of any reserve managed as unscientifically as he would seem inclined to do), but that doesn’t make the negatives go away, I’m afraid. No-ones’s been making shit up about the man, his actions and misguided comments speak for themselves in that regard.
You’re putting your own twist on my words there, Excalibre. Saying a person did things that you realize you (or most other people for that matter) can probably never do to support a cause that you find important is not “trying to claim that Steve Irwin was some incredibly important figure in conservation” as you say.
As for this:
I am of the belief that we can all matter in the grand scheme of things, it only takes realization combined with action at the right time. Some do things that are more recognizeable as affecting the grand scheme of things, but even ripples can have unexpected results. IOW, what he did mattered, but also what you or I do also matters. Some people take the time to think about the kinds of ripples they cause, while others never seem to.
