Share This Page:
Steve Irwin "THE CROCODILE HUNTER"
Steve Irwin "THE CROCODILE HUNTER"
Just wanted to say to everyone how shocked and how sad this is.
The man was a legend and is a great loss and will be deeply missed!
R.I.P Steve Irwin
The man was a legend and is a great loss and will be deeply missed!
R.I.P Steve Irwin
PJFT: June o6 - 9.07
PRMC: Passed December 07
RT: February 08
PRMC: Passed December 07
RT: February 08
Ditto that.
Although I prefer the Attenborough approach to nature filming, you can't deny that this man has done a lot of good work as an environmentalist.
His enthusiasm for his passion was incredible and I think he helped bring nature and the love of animals to an entirely new audience.
R.I.P.
Although I prefer the Attenborough approach to nature filming, you can't deny that this man has done a lot of good work as an environmentalist.
His enthusiasm for his passion was incredible and I think he helped bring nature and the love of animals to an entirely new audience.
R.I.P.
Aways look on the bright side of life.
-
- Member
- Posts: 411
- Joined: Wed 26 Apr, 2006 8:56 pm
- Location: Glasgow
He got what he deserved, if your going to fanny about with the worlds greatest predators for financial gain sooner or later its literally going to come back to bite you.
My thoughts go out to the mans young family but I wont be mourning the loss. Hopefully the crocs in Oz will now be able to sleep at night without Steve Irwin jumping on there back and sticking his thumb up there arse in front of a TV crew in the name of 'conservation'.
My thoughts go out to the mans young family but I wont be mourning the loss. Hopefully the crocs in Oz will now be able to sleep at night without Steve Irwin jumping on there back and sticking his thumb up there arse in front of a TV crew in the name of 'conservation'.
Heartless TW*T
If it wasn't for him half of the most dangerous animals would be instinct!! He didn't go around places annoying the hell out of crocodiles for no reason did he.
Yeah he did push the boundries in some places but as for Financial Reasons How can donating most of the profits to charitys and the Zoo's he ran and the survival to many animals account for this???
If it wasn't for him half of the most dangerous animals would be instinct!! He didn't go around places annoying the hell out of crocodiles for no reason did he.
Yeah he did push the boundries in some places but as for Financial Reasons How can donating most of the profits to charitys and the Zoo's he ran and the survival to many animals account for this???
Last edited by chris5818 on Mon 04 Sep, 2006 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PJFT: June o6 - 9.07
PRMC: Passed December 07
RT: February 08
PRMC: Passed December 07
RT: February 08
So you would also say that about any soldier who loses his life because he was 'fannying about' with some of the worlds most dangerous predators (the enemy).digitalfreefall wrote:He got what he deserved, if your going to fanny about with the worlds greatest predators for financial gain sooner or later its literally going to come back to bite you.
Do you know anything about him other than his TV program? Apparently not as otherwise you would know that he did more for the conservation of animals than perhaps anyone in recent times and that a very large percentage of money he had made went back into his zoo and preserving wildlife.
He just had a more entertaining and broadcastable approach to wildlife than others before him.
Think before you open your mouth

Aways look on the bright side of life.
For financial gain? Provide me any example of the guy putting that as his priority over any of the benefits to the animals he worked with. For all the good he did raising awareness and educating people of the animals and their plights - you say he got what he deserved? You obviously know nothing about him & why he 'jumped on crocodiles backs'.digitalfreefall wrote:He got what he deserved, if your going to fanny about with the worlds greatest predators for financial gain sooner or later its literally going to come back to bite you.
My thoughts go out to the mans young family but I wont be mourning the loss. Hopefully the crocs in Oz will now be able to sleep at night without Steve Irwin jumping on there back and sticking his thumb up there arse in front of a TV crew in the name of 'conservation'.
Your a f*c*ing idiot.
Aside that, I echo the other sentiments, Steve Irwin was fantastic, his memory will live on in the results of his work.
SP
The line between BS and PC is thin and blurry
The line between BS and PC is thin and blurry
-
- Member
- Posts: 759
- Joined: Mon 21 Mar, 2005 11:19 am
- Location: Bristol, U.K
-
- Member
- Posts: 411
- Joined: Wed 26 Apr, 2006 8:56 pm
- Location: Glasgow
Yes he did raise awareness and yes he did donate part of his money to conservation and his zoo, however he constantly took unnecessary risk infront of film crews simply to add excitement to his kids TV show.
He died after getting far too close to a predator and putting himself in harms way for no other reason than getting a good shot. "Stingrays only sting in defence, they're not aggressive animals so the animal must have felt threatened. It didn't sting out of aggression, it stung out of fear," BBC
“If it wasn't for him half of the most dangerous animals would be instinct “
Where did you hear that ? Steve Irwin wasnt the only conservationists in Australia. Most of them are working tirelessly far from the publics gaze and putting there own saftey before celebrity.
“So you would also say that about any soldier who loses his life because he was 'fannying about' with some of the worlds most dangerous predators (the enemy). “
You cant compare Steve Irwin filming TV with a soldier putting his life on the line to make the world a safer place.
As I said my thought go out to his family, but if he had concentrated on conservation instead of rating winning shots there is a good chance he would still be alive.
Call me Heartless TW*T, a f*c*ing idiot if you like doesnt change the fact that he has widowed his wife and left his kids without a father by pushing the boundarys of saftey for sensationalist pop TV.
He died after getting far too close to a predator and putting himself in harms way for no other reason than getting a good shot. "Stingrays only sting in defence, they're not aggressive animals so the animal must have felt threatened. It didn't sting out of aggression, it stung out of fear," BBC
“If it wasn't for him half of the most dangerous animals would be instinct “
Where did you hear that ? Steve Irwin wasnt the only conservationists in Australia. Most of them are working tirelessly far from the publics gaze and putting there own saftey before celebrity.
“So you would also say that about any soldier who loses his life because he was 'fannying about' with some of the worlds most dangerous predators (the enemy). “
You cant compare Steve Irwin filming TV with a soldier putting his life on the line to make the world a safer place.
As I said my thought go out to his family, but if he had concentrated on conservation instead of rating winning shots there is a good chance he would still be alive.
Call me Heartless TW*T, a f*c*ing idiot if you like doesnt change the fact that he has widowed his wife and left his kids without a father by pushing the boundarys of saftey for sensationalist pop TV.
Depends on how you look at it. Steve Irwin has put his life on the line (and paid the price) for trying to make the world a safer place for innocent animals. Soldiers put their lives on the line in order to make the world a safer place for innocent civilians.digitalfreefall wrote:You cant compare Steve Irwin filming TV with a soldier putting his life on the line to make the world a safer place.
You may argue that he did not need to put his life on the line in order to fight his cause but consider this...
If his ratings go up (which they have done because of the nature of his show), he gets more money from the TV companies and merchandise and more people will visit his zoo. The more money he makes, the more money he can pump into his passion - protecting animals.digitalfreefall wrote:rating winning shots
Aways look on the bright side of life.
digitalfreefall wrote:Yes he did raise awareness and yes he did donate part of his money to conservation and his zoo, however he constantly took unnecessary risk infront of film crews simply to add excitement to his kids TV show.
Define unnecessary risk.
He died after getting far too close to a predator and putting himself in harms way for no other reason than getting a good shot.
He was not a photographer. Think about it.
"Stingrays only sting in defence, they're not aggressive animals so the animal must have felt threatened. It didn't sting out of aggression, it stung out of fear," BBC
“If it wasn't for him half of the most dangerous animals would be instinct “
Where did you hear that ? Steve Irwin wasnt the only conservationists in Australia. Most of them are working tirelessly far from the publics gaze and putting there own saftey before celebrity.
Steve Irwin was doing what he was doing long before it brought him celebrity status. You think he did what he did for his own ego?
“So you would also say that about any soldier who loses his life because he was 'fannying about' with some of the worlds most dangerous predators (the enemy). “
You cant compare Steve Irwin filming TV with a soldier putting his life on the line to make the world a safer place.
Steve Irwin did not film TV, and to an extent he was making the world a better place - educating people, protecting animals and raising awareness of animals, their ways and habitats - which would have offered protection through knowledge.
As I said my thought go out to his family, but if he had concentrated on conservation instead of rating winning shots there is a good chance he would still be alive.
So what, are you the sort of person who would pick on a persons flaws at their funeral? "Well, he's dead - but at least we dont have to put up with his... ...anymore."
And again: He got what he DESERVED? Who the hell deserves to DIE for doing what he was doing?
Call me Heartless TW*T, a f*c*ing idiot if you like doesnt change the fact that he has widowed his wife and left his kids without a father by pushing the boundarys of saftey for sensationalist pop TV.
You don't get it.
SP
The line between BS and PC is thin and blurry
The line between BS and PC is thin and blurry
- superbuzzmetal
- Member
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat 18 Mar, 2006 12:13 pm
- Location: Lisbon
-
- Guest
digitalfreefall wrote:“If it wasn't for him half of the most dangerous animals would be instinct “
Where did you hear that ? Steve Irwin wasnt the only conservationists in Australia. Most of them are working tirelessly far from the publics gaze and putting there own saftey before celebrity.
As 70% of all endangered crocodiles and aligators are Bread at Australia Zoo (which i might add is Steve's!!) i think i'm right in saying that "If it wasn't for him half of the most dangerous animals would be instinct "
Australia Zoo is the only place in Australia where some of these certain specimens can be bread because of the amount it costs to run such a program, He did what he did, He pushed Boundries, He lived life on the edge! not for the sake of it! but to keep the ratings up to keep the money coming in and to aid the running of the Zoo.
Yes there are Hundreds of other conservationists working tirelessly and if you had ever watched the program you would have noticed that they all get taken to Australia Zoo (Which is Steve's)!!, because they can't cope with the financial costs.
So there you go, go suck an egg!
Happy Days Of MFAT
PJFT: June o6 - 9.07
PRMC: Passed December 07
RT: February 08
PRMC: Passed December 07
RT: February 08
-
- Member
- Posts: 411
- Joined: Wed 26 Apr, 2006 8:56 pm
- Location: Glasgow
I honestly dont have the time or intention to keep arguing about this anymore I have a PRMC to get ready for.
In my opinion he pushed his luck too far for the sake of shock TV, I have watched enough nature programmes to realise that you can capture a animal safely but it doesnt make good telly.
Fair enough he did do his bit for conservation but he ultimatley paid the price for getting too close and over confident with dangerous animals, as his programmes progressed you could see that he was taking more and more risk to keep the momentum of the show going.
It seems that a few of you are big Irwin fans but if you take a step back and cool off you will see where I am coming from, Im surprised that so many are defending him.
Define unnecessary risk.
The answers in the question.
He was not a photographer. Think about it.
No but the cameraman is. You think about it.
Steve Irwin was doing what he was doing long before it brought him celebrity status. You think he did what he did for his own ego?
Partly, yes I do.
So what, are you the sort of person who would pick on a persons flaws at their funeral? "Well, he's dead - but at least we dont have to put up with his... ...anymore."
No I dont, I wouldnt pick on someones flaws neither would I forget them, my opinion of Irwin has not changed from the first time I watched one of his shows.
And again: He got what he DESERVED? Who the hell deserves to DIE for doing what he was doing?
Yes, If they die taking unnessesary risk without though of consequence to himself or his family.
As 70% of all endangered crocodiles and aligators are Bread at Australia Zoo (which i might add is Steve's!!) i think i'm right in saying that "If it wasn't for him half of the most dangerous animals would be instinct "
Well then thats 70% of the worlds most endangered crocs not 50% of the worlds most dangerous animals.
If he had died saving an animal that would have been different but he was swimming far too close to a dangerous animal no doubt trying to stroke the bloody thing while swimming beside it before breaking to the the surface with a cry of 'crikey isnt she a bute, look at that barbed tail swishing about, lets see if I can scare the s**t out of it some more'
Call me cold hearted if you wish, I think that im taking an objective stance, if you play with fire you will get burned.
I do feel sorry for his wife and kids, just not for him
In my opinion he pushed his luck too far for the sake of shock TV, I have watched enough nature programmes to realise that you can capture a animal safely but it doesnt make good telly.
Fair enough he did do his bit for conservation but he ultimatley paid the price for getting too close and over confident with dangerous animals, as his programmes progressed you could see that he was taking more and more risk to keep the momentum of the show going.
It seems that a few of you are big Irwin fans but if you take a step back and cool off you will see where I am coming from, Im surprised that so many are defending him.
Define unnecessary risk.
The answers in the question.
He was not a photographer. Think about it.
No but the cameraman is. You think about it.
Steve Irwin was doing what he was doing long before it brought him celebrity status. You think he did what he did for his own ego?
Partly, yes I do.
So what, are you the sort of person who would pick on a persons flaws at their funeral? "Well, he's dead - but at least we dont have to put up with his... ...anymore."
No I dont, I wouldnt pick on someones flaws neither would I forget them, my opinion of Irwin has not changed from the first time I watched one of his shows.
And again: He got what he DESERVED? Who the hell deserves to DIE for doing what he was doing?
Yes, If they die taking unnessesary risk without though of consequence to himself or his family.
As 70% of all endangered crocodiles and aligators are Bread at Australia Zoo (which i might add is Steve's!!) i think i'm right in saying that "If it wasn't for him half of the most dangerous animals would be instinct "
Well then thats 70% of the worlds most endangered crocs not 50% of the worlds most dangerous animals.
If he had died saving an animal that would have been different but he was swimming far too close to a dangerous animal no doubt trying to stroke the bloody thing while swimming beside it before breaking to the the surface with a cry of 'crikey isnt she a bute, look at that barbed tail swishing about, lets see if I can scare the s**t out of it some more'
Call me cold hearted if you wish, I think that im taking an objective stance, if you play with fire you will get burned.
I do feel sorry for his wife and kids, just not for him
I rarely get annoyed, but you are a complete T***, if you truely mean that has harshly as you have written it. "he got what he deserves"....i totally disagree. He has done a hell of alot of good, seemed like a real top kinda bloke (and given the responce and and well wishing etc that has come from his death it would appear he WAS without a doubt).digitalfreefall wrote:He got what he deserved, if your going to fanny about with the worlds greatest predators for financial gain sooner or later its literally going to come back to bite you.
My thoughts go out to the mans young family but I wont be mourning the loss. Hopefully the crocs in Oz will now be able to sleep at night without Steve Irwin jumping on there back and sticking his thumb up there arse in front of a TV crew in the name of 'conservation'.
I do get where you are coming from given the job he undertook, but your wording is far from fair. As it is, deaths from stingrays are extremely rare, extremely so in this instance he wasn,t even fanmnying around with some of the worlds most dangerous predators.