Steve Irwin = ambassador / Tim Treadwell = pariah: Why ?

I, along with many others, was saddened to hear the recent news of the passing of Mr. Irwin and the unfortunate circumstances resulting in his death. I must admit that I am not that familiar with him, or his work. I have caught him on TV a few times in the past while surfing through the channels. However, I am a little puzzled over why so many people consider him an ambassador for wildlife and wildlife causes,(see for example the thread on this forum a few lines down "Steve Irwin killed - how sad.) and the revulsion most people have for Treadwell and his legacy. Again I am not that familiar with Treadwell either, other than reading Lapinski's "Death in the Grizzly Maze" and watching "Grizzly Man". Weren't they both just trying to raise the awareness of wildlife issues, (or Alaskan brown bears in Treadwell's case). Granted, Irwin wasn't living in the crocodile's habitat, and trying to be accepted into the crocodile social order. Additionally, Treadwell seemed to fantasize/fabricate a bit about his relevance in "protecting the bears from poachers". However, I didn't see Treadwell dangling babies a few inches away from a hungry grizzly. But in general, didn't they both use extreme/shock methods to raise the awareness of their causes and carve out an income also in the process?
Why the stark difference in opinions regarding their legacies?

I don't think Steve Irwin deluded himself into believing that the animals he was working with were safe or really accepted him. Behind the showmanship, I think he knew and understood the risks he was taking, and probably knew that it would cost him one day. Perhaps not his life, but certain a body part or two.

I can't say the same about Treadwell.

I'm not that familiar with Treadwell, so please take this with a grain of salt. From what I saw of the Treadwell documentary, he seems much less "grounded" in reality than Irwin; at least that's the feeling I came away with. Irwin grew up with crocs, snakes, etc. was very comfortable, confident, and always knew the danger. Treadway on the other hand, seemed to try to deny the danger, having the "we can live in harmony - they won't harm me if I don't harm them" attitude. That's an unrealistic attitude and a very dangerous approach IMO. Again, these are just MY impressions, and I could certainly be wrong, but that's the way I see it.

Irwin grew up in the bush, had a somewhat conventional life (wife, kids, business) and was a very sociable guy. Treadwell seemed to be more of a city kid trying to "commune with nature" in a most unrealistic way, couldn't seem to make it in "real" world, and seemed to have trouble socializing. I think at one point in his film he actually said something along the lines of "The bears are my real friends" or "I feel more comfortable with bears than I do people." Something to that effect. Treadwell was a social misfit, Irwin was a showman. I do think Treadwell understood that some bears were dangerous, but I got the feeling that he was in denial about it to a great extent. Irwin very well knew the critters he played with were dangerous but generally used some precautions (although he was impulsive at times, such as kissing a non-secured wild tiger snake on the top of the head! ) I like the comment above that "Treadwell seems much less well grounded than Irwin" and agree.

While I do think both were sincere about conservation, I think the bottom line is Irwin was more personable (=relates to people well) where Treadwell came across more as a "flake" or self indulgent nut with his occasional rants and cursing. Treadwell seemed to have great difficulty relating to people, as evidenced by his small circle of friends and self imposed isolation. I think another key point of difference is that Irwin never put his wife in danger, where Treadwell obviously did. So that's the answer, I think. As a personable guy Irwin was easier for us to relate to, where the more isolated/alienated Treadwell is much more difficult for us to relate to.



Kent in SD

Irwin believed he had a special relationship with animals, even crocodiles. That's delusional. Why are celebrates admired for messing with animals while others are chastised? Why wasn't the guy who climbed the arch in Utah congratulated as an ambassador to conservation of the southern desert? Should the guy climbing the arch have pretended to slip a few times and said "Blimy!" as an explicative? Would that make him an ambassador instead of a vandal?

I knew Tim and debated some of these issues long and hard with him. It was obvious at the time and afterwards that I never got through. I do recall that Tim admired Irwin and justified his own actions by specifically citing Irwin to me in one conversation.

I didn't know Irwin, but couldn't bring myself to sit through more than the first few minutes of the single episode I tried to watch. Too much Barnum and Bailey for me, and what I saw as disrespect for the animals on behalf of good footage.

He really lost me when he dragged his kid along while he stunted with the croc. For another comparison, how is that different than Michael Jackson dangling his own kid off a balcony? The explanations and justifications rang startlingly similar to me.

Delesional or not, The Grizzly Man was an exceptional documentary and I do think Tim raised awareness for his cause.

Hank, how long had you known Tim?

I completely agree with Cindy, above. While it was poor PR, Bob (Irwin's kid) was not actually in danger and was never "dangled." The croc had been fed shortly before the outing, and there were plenty of "spotters" on hand. Add to this that Irwin didn't spend the money he earned on fancy cars and a lavish lifestyle, but instead on buying up precious Australian habitat for endangered species and you have someone who is the opposite of the perverted Jackson. No comparison at all. While Irwin might have been a bit of a hotdog, he was sincere and did a lot of good.

I also agree that "Grizzly Man" was a fascinating documentary, but I came away thinking Treadwell was a "disturbed" man. My only real gripe with him though was his placing his girlfriend in danger, and ultimately didn't he cause the bear to be killed? A potential gripe I would have with Irwin is there is the possiblity that his antics might have led some drunk guy somewhere to think he could pick up a black mamba (or whatever) with disasterous results. I've not seen any confirmed cases of that happening though. Finally, it's pretty obvious that Irwin loved his wife and kids and I find it highly unlikely he would knowingly put them in danger. Anyone want to make the case that Jackson loved his wife Jackson might have loved his kid, but maybe not in the same way Irwin did?

Kent in SD

I also believe the biggest tragedy of the Treadwell encounter was that his companion, putting her faith in his faith in the compassion of bears, was killed because of his beliefs. Wild animals are the ultimate pragmatists. I care little whether people consider Treadwell a social misfit. I find humans to be among the most arbitrary, capricious and punitive of any species I've paid close attention to. I find us pretty hard to take most of the time myself. I watched Irwin from time to time, not because his show fascinated me (as stated before, too much Barnum and Bailey), but because I've always been equally repulsed and fascinated by deadly snakes.

When Treadwell died and I learned the details, I shrugged over him but felt very bad for his companion. When Irwin died I shook my head at the irony of his dying by having his heart punctured by a stingray barb instead of being struck in the face by a mamba, tiger snake, or coral snake. He did dangle the deadliest of snakes with the greatest of panache in front of his face.

The wife had a choice, the baby did not.

No one who did not know Irwin personally knew him. You knew the persona he projected and you interpreted.

Was Treadwell's companion taken without her consent? As far as I know she was an adult capable of making her own decisions. Please correct me if she was taken against her will.

I met Tim the first year he came up here. He contacted me about camera problems and was looking for help. He subsequently stopped by or called on each trip- both spring and fall. I also encountered him several times in the field and watched him first-hand with "his" bears. Couldn't turn off the tube like I did with Irwin, but I did turn and walk away.

Wow people so quick to bag a dead person about what he did or didn't do.....

The croc incident......... What happens when you use a long tele lens and compress the scene, you make the objects from near to far seem closer than they really are, agree. funny the croc incident with Bob was only shown by the one TV station that was in a area that compressed the scene and made it look as if the baby was right over the croc, the other two stations that shot the scene from side on never showed anything that night, Not until people saw the compressed image from the first station did the other two air the side view. His kid was never in any danger at all, but mocka way those of you who have no facts on what actually happened, just makes you look like D^&kheads.

Steve made Millions out of the shows he did and the movie he made, He then spent that money on his zoo and also buying up huge amounts of land for wildlife sanctuaries. To protect Australia's wonderful wildlife. He never lived a lavish life.

Interpret how you will but I feel sorry for those that have to mock him now that he's dead. Get a life and show some bloody respect

I didn't know Irwin, but couldn't bring myself to sit through more than the first few minutes of the single episode I tried to watch. Too much Barnum and Bailey for me, and what I saw as disrespect for the animals on behalf of good footage.

As is usually the case, Hank has nailed my own take on this perfectly. Without knowing the good Mr. Irwin did for wildlife "behind the scenes," it always seemed to me that showmanship was the highest priority and the single selling point. Maybe that's why I never got into watching any of it either.

That said, perhaps Mr. Irwin realized that is what it would take to sell the show to fund the far more important behind the scenes work.

The best discussion I've seen so far was Wed. night on FoxNews, the O'Reilly Factor (this is a great news analysis show.) O'Reilly and two guests, including Jim Fowler, made the point that these wildlife shows are "packaging" nature for consumption by TV audiences. Showmanship is very important and the show hosts seem to be taking more and more chances. Where people from my generation were happy to see old Marlin Perkins standing in front of a pool pointing to a herd of hippos, current audiences want "thrills", such as catching king cobras with your bare hands. Fowler said that knowledge of the animals/behavior makes this a safe occupation, while O'Reilly disagreed saying that wildlife is inherently unpredictable and eventually your luck runs out. He cited a couple of other recent examples. One thing I think Irwin can be credited for is turning around Australian public opinion on crocodiles. When he began the prevailing sentiment was kill them all off, but through his 30-some years of work there seems to be more acceptance that they need a place to live and swim free; an appreciation of them.

Treadwell's girlfriend. No, she wasn't dragged along, but I have to wonder just how much she knew about bears herself instead of relying on what he told her. The documentary rarely touched on her so she is a bit of a mystery. I could speculate that her fear of being alone (i.e. not with Treadwell) was greater than her fear of the bears. Bottom line is I'm not confident she was rational either. At any rate, keeping in mind that I'm a product of traditional Midwestern culture, the guiding thought for me is that a stand-up guy's job is to protect his woman (and family) and does not put them in the path of certain harm. Treadwell seemed to know he was eventually going to be attacked according to his own statements in the film. From my perspective he had no business taking his unarmed girlfriend along (no pepper spray for emergencies.) I sometimes do risky things myself such as taking my little duckboat out on the Missouri River in the middle of winter, but I would never ever take my wife along (or kids.)


Kent in SD

"O'Reilly disagreed saying that wildlife is inherently unpredictable and eventually your luck runs out"

Just as O'Reilly's luck should have run out with discriminating viewers when he was tape-recorded demanding phone sex from a female employee. O'Reilly, like many of the TV people commenting on Irwin, knows nothing about wildlife. Though I wasn't a huge fan of Irwin, haven't seen the entirety of one of his shows in years, my reaction to his death and the people denouncing him is the same as my reaction to the croc-and-baby incident. Who would you rather have with you in the bush, Irwin or O'Reilly (or some other pseudo intellectual)? Who is a better judge of what's safe, someone who has worked with wildlife since childhood or O'Reilly and his ilk? What do talking-heads know about Irwin, wildlife, or anything else beside what's on the teleprompter?

I agree with Cliff 100% when it comes to these NYC commentators opining about how dangerous and foolish Irwin, et al are/were. They have about as much knowledge and credibility when it comes to wildlife as I would commenting on the NYC social scene. I have been in the woods/swamps literally my entire life. I put myself into many situations that others might consider foolish or dangerous when it comes to gators, snakes, etc. My answer to that would be don't judge my capabilities using your capabilities as a yardstick. Wildlife is a million times more predictable than humans, and there's no susbstitute for experience when dealng with them. For someone to sit back in their chair in a TV studio and judge Irwin is absurd. He may have been a showboat, but he was highly skilled and very knowledgeble about the wildlife he was handling; and I would be willing to bet he had a some medical personnel, antivenin, etc. available for emergencies just in case. I would never put myself into the situations in which he placed himself, not because of the danger, but because I know my limitations - he knew his as well. What killed him was a freak incident, not his being stupid or careless. I didn't always care for his style of showmanship, but I always felt that what you saw was the real person, and he was absolutely passionate about his beliefs. I only wish I had a tenth of his energy and passion. I will definitely miss the man.

I got none of this feelng from viewing the documentary about Treadwell. He may have had passion, but he seemed to lack the knowledge and experience necessary for dealing with dangerous wildlife. He was an accident looking for a place to happen.

I hope you guys will indulge me to be so crass as to attempt to answer my own question posed originally.

I think part of the reason Treadwell is remembered so unfavorably, is that his volume of work was performed on a very limited budget. Consequently, our opinions of him have been formed based on the second-hand exposures from sources such as Herzog's "Grizzly Man", Nick Jans' "The Grizzly Maze" and Mike Lapinski's "Death in the Grizzly Maze". Hence, our opinions are subject to the biases transferred from the filmakers and authors. I personally, never saw Treadwell on TV while he was still alive, although he did have a smattering of appearances on Letterman and others. If he would have had the huge budget that Irwin accumulated, he would have had the benefit of a PR machine that Irwin surely took advantage of.

Conversely, based upon his much larger budget, Irwin was able to get a much wider exposure to the various media outlets. Therefore, most of us have seen Irwin first-hand at some time or another on TV, and were able to form an opinion of him based upon our own response to his schtick, unsullied by the biases of others. (I don't mean to discount all the financial contributions Irwin gave to the people of Australia.)

Yes, a lot of Treadwell's actions may have been self-serving, but I speculate that if he would have survived longer, and developed a much larger war chest to take advantage of a PR department, I bet many people's opinions of him and his legacy would be much different.

Rant mode off.

I would like both O'Reilly and Irwin in the bush. Irwin would be poking O'Reilly with a stick to get reactions. It would be great.
Obviously Irwin did not know his limitations. But with rays being members of the shark family, he probably thought there was a special bond. He died just as people said he would. Same with Treadwell.

If he would have had the huge budget that Irwin accumulated, he would have had the benefit of a PR machine that Irwin surely took advantage of.

Which comes first, the man or the PR? It appears Treadwell was too quirky to work well with others and get to the level Irwin did. The two men are specifically compared on that basis on page 47 of The Grizzly Maze.

Obviously Irwin did not know his limitations. But with rays being members of the shark family, he probably thought there was a special bond.

I guess you know more about rays than the experts, who describe what happened to Irwin as a freak occurrence with odds too low to calculate. People swim with rays all the time. There are businesses in the Caribbean specializing in this (http://www.stingraycitytrips.com). For a photo of someone actually riding a giant ray, see this image by the great Norbert Wu:

http://norb.homedns.org/nwp/storycode/soc-web/large-18.html

The thing that really unites Irwin and Treadwell is the unseemly glee some seem to take in their deaths.

No glee here. Just deep sadness over what I see as the outcome of inappropriate behaviour, whatever and however lofty the motives. I've not said anything I didn't say before their deaths, and in Treadwell's case, to his face and repeatedly. I would have said the same to Irwin if I met him. I simply refuse to let either be deified or hoisted onto pedistals because their antics got them killed, whether due to ignorance or incalculable bad luck.

BTW- There are rays and then there are rays. Hundreds of species, and some have little or no stinger and differing capacities to use them. I can't recall whether mantas have one or not. If so it was inconspicuous when they swam by me. I will say that Norm and other perpetrators of such intimacy with wildlife are perpetrators of the same frame of mind as Treadwell and Irwin- i.e., wildlife is approachable and touchable. The whole point of the photos and the antics is promotion- whether self promotion, promotion for a good cause, or promotion of the latest toothpaste. Entertaining and encouraging people to mistreat wildlife in this way is ultimately bad for the animals.

I've dived with Rays in the vicinity. But I don't poke them with sticks, try to ride them, or put them on my head. I'm also experienced enough to know that what a publicist says in situation like this is always a lie. Even if the truth isn't that bad.
I didn't know Irwin and neither did you.

Folks, I'm moving this to the "Hot Topics" forum as it's become a healthy debate. Have fun.

I've dived with Rays in the vicinity. But I don't poke them with sticks, try to ride them, or put them on my head. I'm also experienced enough to know that what a publicist says in situation like this is always a lie. Even if the truth isn't that bad. I didn't know Irwin and neither did you.

Correct, neither of us knew Irwin. But now it seems you know he was doing something bad to that ray, maybe poking it with a stick, maybe some lesser offense. Whatever his publicist says, the coroner has the film. Why don't we see what the facts are?

Hank, no deification here. But in many parts of the U.S., there used to be annual round-ups, in which hundreds of snakes would be killed for entertainment. So I don't see Irwin's brand of entertainment as all that evil by comparison. He definitely got my nephew interested in wildlife (cats more than snakes). Nor do I think Irwin, any more than Treadwell, encouraged people to do what he did. Irwin's method of handling snakes (grabbing the tail, letting the weight of the body rest on the ground) is more humane than using Pilstrom tongs, but I'm not about to try it myself, nor do I think many will.

I am afraid that I have never had much respect for Steve Irwin. I didn't have that while he was alive, and I won't change my opinion now that his way of working got the better of him. Obviously this doesn't mean that I don't feel sorry for his family. However, I have been surprised for many years that he kept alive for so long.

Remember the code that each wildlife photographer specifically should keep to: to never harass or disturb your subject in any way. Irwin may not have been a wildlife photographer, but in my opinion his line of work wasn't such that he could afford to have such a completely different attitude. From what I saw, Steve was never happy to just show an animal unless he could pick it up and hold it for a long time while the animal was struggling to be freed. Seeing that always made me freak out. All the time while he would be holding the animal, he would be screaming that this was an amazing animal and that he loved it, but the animal itself would have said very different things about Steve if it could have.

Of course in this way Steve has managed to reach many people and make them enthusiastic about wildlife, but that doesn't mean that his ways were right! He may have raised awareness and have contributed to conservation, but apart from the direct stress he caused the animals he encountered, he has also shown countless people the wrong example of how to handle wildlife. Compare him to someone like David Attenborough, who as far as I know was a lot less intruding on the lifes of his subjects. Personally I have learned so much more about nature from Attenborough's programs than from Irwin's, not least of all to respect a subject and to look at it from a distance rather than get your hands on it. Attenborough, along with the great photography, provides you with actual knowledge about his subject, whereas Irwin provides drama and excitement. I know what I prefer and I know what the subjects would prefer.

I hope that Irwin hasn't inspired too many people, least of all nature photographers, to pick up their subjects to have a better look.

I said I don't poke them with sticks, try to ride them, or put them on my head. Something make you think of Irwin?
He and the camera man crowded the ray. The ray got stressed and whacked Irwin to make space and get away. Or perhaps the ray was just teasing Irwin to demonstrate typical human behavior to the other rays. Who Knows?

Arthur Sevestre there are places and situations to apply such a code of non-interaction with animals or living things and times when it really makes no difference and is harmless. There are animals which it might apply to and others which it ought not. The world is enormously complex and varied with a full spectrum of situations and circumstances. Thus one ought to be careful upon applying dummed down for the masses simplistic black and white formulas of ethic, morality, and behavior.

With some animals, I'll do more than just pick them up. I'll step right on a cockroach squishing the life out of it in an instant without any qualms. On my last backpacking trip I squished killing hundreds of mosquitoes. In fact I'll eat some animals every time I fill my metal cup from a stream in the backcountry. Well maybe they are hard to see but they are life. I wouldn't think of walking near, much less touch a giant sequoia, in one of the heavily visited public guided trails in the front country of Sequoia National Park. But far in the backcountry there are many trees in remote groves few if any people have even seen much less touched. I might decide some time to sit on the roots for a self timer photo picture simply because it would be absolutely harmless. No harm done to the root system if a few people over the lifetime of a tree come to visit. In national parks I've witnessed herds of animals like elk and refrained from moving closer to them just to make a closer photo. That is the kind of behavior your code is meant for. But I've come upon harmless snakes in the backcountry as rosy boas and gently touched and explored their smooth beautiful skin. Of course the snakes were likely afraid. But no harm was done and given their primitive nervous system whatever their experience was with me they are not suffering any long term effects. I've picked up little toads that made tiny squeaks of fear and peed on my hand. I gently held them looking into their little scared eyes and whispered soft reassurance before putting them down. Yes they were scared and probably will be even more so the next time a human monster comes near. Last week I caught golden trout at a lake above 11,000 feet and kept a few for eating. I had to kill them before cooking. Something I hate to do but as long as I can go down to McDonalds and order a McChicken or Burger King for a Whopper, I think as an intelligent human creature of this planet I ought to be able to kill a few things I eat too in order to appreciate the depths of that reality.

Arthur, I know you probably are talking about the large advanced creatures we humans have more concern for like deer, bear, birds, and yes crocodiles. And that you are referring to natural places people visit to experience those animals in such a setting. There are certainly other folks that share the degree of your belief of non-interaction and care with animals that you do, and you have a right to express those ideas to the rest of us. However lets not strictly apply such and use human common sense in the process. Some things that Irwin did, I think any of us might question as stepping over the boundaries of that code. He was after all a very enthusiastic personality, likely to at a whim even with the camera rolling, diverge at times from what he might have done given careful consideration. It just goes with the territory that sometimes one is going to make mistakes of various degrees. Since he was a public figure under tremendous media exposure, I'm sure he thought at length about his behaviors and had regrets at times at what was broadcast. But just like other long term personalities in the public media, didn't let a few misteps and embarrassments curtail his passion to present what he thought was his gift to the rest of us. ...David

Without getting into whether Irwin was always doing things ethically or not, I think comparing him with Attenborough stands on its own merits. While a deadpanned documentary might work for nature photographers, that style doesn't reach or connect with most general people. You have to interest them first before they'll listen. People talk about crocs and things now, whereas without someone like him they'll go down without a fight like a lot of other species have been over the past 150 years. A child who is exposed to positive feelings for animals will likely be more appreciative of nature later in life. At the heart of everything, their has to be a solid message. Different people require different ways to reach them.

Irwin was schooled and certified as a professional in the study of not only wildlife, but more specifically a herpatologist. Treadwell was schooled in film vaugely and certifiable for the padded Hilton.

Enough already!!!!!
Can we just be sad that 2 human beings, our own species
that lived with passion and love for animals are gone.....
even elephants mourn the passing of their own......
May the next perfect being here.....cast the next stone.....