Quite frankly, I found the Jonkel essay quoted below to be an over-the-top, egotistical rant. Please, everyone, lighten up. Treadwell may have been a nutcase, but Steve Irwin was a children's entertainer, and performed a very valuable function. The ignorance about and level of fear of normal wildlife in our mostly urban environs is incredible. People whacking opossums over the head with shovels thinking that they're giant rats, mothers shrieking and calling the cops (and newspapers) at the glimpse of coyotes (notorious devourers of children), snake phobia, ad nauseum ad infinitum. Steve Irwin's 'antics' showed kids (and many ignorant adults) that wildlife was not to be feared and mindlessly obliterated on sight. This message is best presented to certain audiences, perhaps the ones that need it most, just as Irwin presented it. We can all sit in our ivory towers and hold up the best wildlife documentaries as the models, and proclaim all other pedagogical techniques as tacky, but that ignores most of the potential audience. Though not a fan of Irwin, I never saw any animal abuse or killings, but rather respect and awe, just the things you want to inculcate in children. Sure, he was a showman, and the success he had is perhaps the source of some jealousy on the part of less successful educators.
William R. Porter > Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:55:49 +0000 > From: stan moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: critical essay on the antics of Irwin and Treadwell > > Folks -- the following essay was published on http://www.counterpunch.org > > I tend to agree with Dr. Jonkel about Steve Irwin and the late Timothy > Treadwell. Both of these men were entertainers who used wildlife as their > props to attract an audience and whose antics I believe were never in the > best interest of the wyldlife they so claimed to love. This does not mean > that science and education cannot be co-mingled, but there are lines of > ethics that should not be crossed and I believe that jumping on crocodiles > for entertaining television footage or invading the comfort zones of large > bears for the same reason cross those lines. Paradoxically, these sort of > human behaviors tend to get corrected by the targets of the behaviors when > those wildlife have had enough. > > Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > here is the essay I spoke of: > > > September 25, 2006 > > "People of the Croc Hunter Ilk are Worse Than the Most Bloodthirsty Slob > Hunter" > Save a Grizzly, Visit a Library > By Dr. CHARLES JONKEL > > The mass media, wildlife film industry, wildlife filmmakers, Hollywood > celebrities and wildlife agencies need a good dressing down. The > proliferation of "el cheapo," entertainment-oriented wildlife films causes > drastic impacts on wildlife species worldwide. As humans become ever more > oriented to human creations, totally urban lifestyles, glitz and glitter, > personalities, high-speed everything, oddball "moments," self-centered > blogs, instant wealth at anything's expense, frivolous religion and > politics, and endless/meaningless drivel and marketing, wild animals suffer. > > So the Croc Hunter was done in by a stingray and Timothy Treadwell by a > brown bear. In both cases they earned their own demise, fooling with nature, > doing goofy things with large and formidable animals better left alone. > > Steve Irwin's stupid behaviors with animals teasing them, getting too > close, goading them into attacks not only teaches bad value and > interactions relative to wildlife, but will be copied by thousands of other > airheads for decades to come and has set ever lower standards for the > media-an industry which constantly exploits wildlife with quick-and-dirty > films, film clips, and wildlife "news" focused on the trivial. > > For 29 years I have rallied against such wildlife pornography. I created the > International Wildlife Film Festival to set high standards and to promote > the production of high-quality wildlife films. Even before IWFF, I > recognized that bears (in particular) were vulnerable to excessive and > dramatized reporting and human interest. I started early on (the early > 1960s) to teach not exploiting bear "charisma" for profit and gain, or to > enhance one's ego. I have always used bears as a medium to teach and > communicate about science and nature, but in ways not detrimental to the > bears. > > Likewise, for decades I have been trying to encourage wildlife agencies, > wildlife researchers, managers, law enforcement people, and university-level > wildlife departments to deal with extensive wildlife exploitation within the > mass media, the wildlife film industry, and wildlife film marketing. > Professionals, well aware of the terrible impacts on wildlife by market > hunters early in the 1960s, have steadfastly remained in denial about > wildlife in the wildlife film marketplace. Even today, almost no wildlife > management, research, or law enforcement is practiced on, focused on, or > taught about the enormous, deleterious effects of bad wildlife filmmaking, > distribution, marketing or screening. > > I often note that hunters, fishermen and trappers are constantly controlled, > regulated, held to high sportsman standards and pursued for violations. The > typical hunter has a wad of papers about 200 pages long in his or her pocket > in order to "stay legal," to guide on bag limits, seasons, hunting times, > sex and age, closed or open areas, care of the meat, caliber of the rifle or > type of shot used, etc. In the meantime, those same agencies encourage and > aid countless filmmakers, camera crews, photographers, editors, writers, and > whatever to go out and do whatever they want, when they want and where they > want. Staff biologists are not encouraged to monitor, evaluate and speak out > on, or control, wildlife productions. The content is basically considered > entertainment for in the evening, not a wildlife professional's > responsibility. Treadwell, for example, was allowed to do many things > illegal for others to do. > > Worse, perhaps, the needed standards, ethical evaluations, impacts on > wildlife and actions needed are not included in wildlife textbooks or > classrooms. The whole matter is studiously ignored, as not important in the > profession of wildlife biology, despite the 29 years that IWFF and the Great > Bear Foundation have called for action. "Poachers with a camera" still > mostly write their own rules. People like Irwin and Treadwell still do what > they damn well please with animals-countless actions that a hunter would be > fined and jailed for. Star-struck is for kids, not wildlife professionals. > Filmmaking should not be an allowable way to exploit wildlife for money and > fame. The National Geographic Society and the Discovery Channel and all of > their defenders should hang their heads in shame for promoting stupid TV > actions over sound wildlife biology. > > So why does this problem go on forever? People steal the charisma of the > animals to boost their own ego and status, which translates into money. It > is always the money. So far as I care, wildlife will be considerably better > off without Treadwell and Irwin. Where are the other voices of the people > who should object? Why should the balance always be stacked for the > sensational, the glitz? > > Charles Jonkel is president of the Missoula-based Great Bear Foundation > > ------------------------------ -- I've made an odd discovery. Every time I talk to a savant I feel quite sure that happiness is no longer a possibility. Yet when I talk with my gardener, I'm convinced of the opposite. - Bertrand Russell
