Croc Hunter

[lindamg]

I think this is an excellent example of people having differing life experiences causing them to react to situations in different ways. Nutsy has been to this particular zoo and has a perspective on the situation that most of us don't have. I read Mom2angels signature and I realize and understand that her life experiences will give her a different gut reaction to the situation. I don't have children, don't particularly care for wildlife, just don't have that same gut reaction that some moms might have. I think we can't judge the level of danger unless we were in that situation ourselves.

Children face LOTS of dangers in many families that are much more imminently dangerous than that croc was. This is a child who will be growing up around these animals. It is a different lifestyle and attitude towards animals than most of us are used to.

I think it probably wasn't a smart move on Steve's part (not necessarily dangerous, just not smart) and that the media is taking advantage of some people's emotions to rile things ups.

Linda

 

[WDWisTheBest]

I don't second guess Steve in this situation. He would not put his own one-month old child in harm's way.

I doubt that he will ever do that again. But, I don't think that there is a valid comparison to Michael Jackson or to Sigfried and Roy.

 

[browneyes]

Originally posted by Mom2Angels
So if you are in the crowd of onlookers and Steve comes up to you and wants to take your one month old baby out and do the same as he did with his son, would you let him????

Steve doesn't know me, how does he know I won't bite him if he asks to hold my hypothetical one month old baby?

 

[RitaZ.]

I think comparing his situation to the situation with MJ and his baby is ridiculous.

I totally agree with this.

Personally I wouldn't allow anyone to do that with any of my children, much less when they were infants. However, I'm a worrier and I would probably have a heart attack on the spot... For risk takers, such as Steve, this may not be such a terrifying experience. Just because I choose to avoid a situation for myself and my children doesn't mean that everyone out there should do the same. Some folks are risk takers, others are not.

I see parents that willingly put their children in endangering situations every single day. They have their kids ride in the front seat of the car with no seat belt on, no car/booster seat, moving/jumping around the back of the van or suv while driving, etc. We all know it's against the law in FL to ride in a vehicle without a seat belt or without a car seat for certain ages, but parents do it anyway. I see young children walking home to school by themselves that have come very close to getting hit by a car. They are obviously too young to handle the responsibility, but parents send them anyway. Why aren't those parents investigated for child endargement?

 

[BibbidyBobbidyBoo]

Originally posted by damo
I think people overlook many, many of the everyday dangers that we put our kids in. I still see many people holding babies on their laps in cars, letting toddlers jump around in the back seat, etc.

And that means what? They endanger their children (and what you just stated btw is against the law in most, if not all, states) so it makes it okay to endanger your child's life in any way you see fit?

Why aren't those parents investigated for child endargement?

If you turn it in and/or they are seen- most likely they will be investigated on top of receiving a citation (if the police officer witnesses it). Just because some people get away with endangering their children's lives doesn't mean that all cases of endangerment should be ignored and not investigated.

"I was in complete control of the crocodile. Robert was tucked right in my arm.

"It is far more dangerous to pack your kid up and go out on the road."

The show was billed as Bob's "croc-feeding debut".

"Good boy, Bob," Irwin said as Murray's jaws snapped shut on the food.

"He's one-month-old, so it's about time Bob got out there and did his first croc demo," Irwin told the crowd. Irwin's wife Terri backed the decision to include Bob.

"When I put him back in the pram he had big eyes and he was smiling and it was a wonderful sensory experience for him. He dug it," she said. Irwin said he took the "sting" out of the crocodile by luring him on to land.

That is the most ridiculous stuff I have ever heard.
No matter who you are or how experienced you are with a croc- you can NEVER be in complete control of a crocodile unless they are tied/taped at the mouth, legs tied back and in one of those boxes he puts them in when in transit. That's it. Any other situation- you can be hurt by teeth or tail at a moment's notice. What is he controlling the croc by? Mind meld?

He's 1mo old so it's about time he did his first croc demo??? Huh?

And a 1mo old has NO idea what's going on- he can't "dig" any such thing. How ridiculous... if anything the baby was not only NOT 'digging it' but probably uncomfortable with the head/neck not supported. Look at the picture! Poor baby's head/face falling downward without support at all.

 

[luv2nascar]

Mom2angels: I wasn't reading the tigers mind. I saw Siegfried on tv & he said Roy fell & the tiger carried him to safety & he was protecting him from further harm.
He also indicated both he & Roy thought Montague meant Roy no harm & Roy wanted nothing done to harm the tiger

 

[sha_lyn]

How do you or anyone else for that matter know that is what the tiger was doing?

Because we paid attention to the facts. A woman in the audience kept trying to pet the tiger after being told several times not to do so. The tiger became agravated and Roy tried to step between the woman and the tiger and tripped (slipped?) and fell. The tiger thne picked him up by the neck (as a mother would its cub) and carried him to the back. The tiger didn't do any of the typical behavior a tiger would do when attacking prey, as in quickly breaking the neck to keep the prey from struggling.


(edited to add Roys name. the post above mine with his name was posted while I was still typing out my post. At that time I could recall which one of the it happened to)

 

[BibbidyBobbidyBoo]

Originally posted by sha_lyn
Because we paid attention to the facts. A woman in the audience kept trying to pet the tiger after being told several times not to do so. The tiger became agravated and he (I can't remember which one LOL) tried to step between the woman and the tiger and tripped (slipped?) and fell. The tiger thne picked him up by the neck (as a mother would its cub) and carried him to the back. The tiger didn't do any of the typical behavior a tiger would do when attacking prey, as in quickly breaking the neck to keep the prey from struggling.

That's what I had read also... and all I can keep thinking is if that tiger wanted him dead, he'd have BEEN dead, within seconds. No ifs, and's or but's about it. He wasn't killed immediately (injured VERY badly- but not killed almost instantly) and that in of itself makes me believe the tiger was not "attacking" him.

 

[Nutsy]

This is very sad & the media have totally gone awol with this.


I live local & it's all in our papers & on the tv & as I said, I was at his Zoo just 3 days prior to this & tho if it were my child there is no way in the world I would allow it................the fact it that is was not my child, but Steve's.


A guy who was born & raised on that property & whose father was a croc hunter. Yes, it was risky what Steve did & yes I agree that 1 month old is too young, but really........is that for us to judge.

Steve & Terri were both happy to do it & there daughter Bindi who is now 5 was also introduced to Crocs at a simliar age as was Steve himself.

This guy has grown up with crocs, they have been in his backyard all his life.

In actual fact it would be a good idea for these media folk to review the footage..................because if you look at the whole picture rather than just focus on what they are making such a big deal about "Baby Robert}", then it is very obvious to see that the Croc at no point is eyeing off baby Robert, but in fact has eyes only for the chicken Steve is dangling in front of it.

Also, the fact that, when Steve put baby Robert on the ground, the croc {Murray} was not in the slighest interested.....it did in fact turn the other way.

So there we have it & I might add that all this hype over what Steve did with his own son has hurt that family terribly.

Tot the point where Steve has said that he is seriously considering no more public appearances.

He has said that he does what he does to spread the word about wildlife, about our passion for wildlife.

I don't see how anyone can sit in judgement on this, unless they were actually there in the Crocoseum, not behind a camera, but there seeing with their own two eyes just what goes on.

Steve said "I know people looking at me and Bob in the enclosure might look at that adn think. "That's weird', but if they came and lived with us for a month, they'd look at it and say. "That's necessary'."

Don't forget that Steve & his family live on site, so the kids are exposed to these animals in every day life.

 

[Nutsy]

Originally posted by luv2nascar
I As for Steve that was irresponsible on his part. I saw video where a guy he works closely with had a croc bite into his butt & leg and nearly rip it off. It happened in a second. There was no way Steve could get that baby out of the way in a second if something happened. He is underestimating the croc & overestimating his own ability.

If you choose to take risks with your own life that's your choice but you never take unneeded chances with your childrens' lives.

Actually you know......like I've said before.......unless you've actually been there to the Zoo & to the show then to be quite honest I don't see how you can comment....

He could in fact have been out of there in the blink of an eye had Murray (the croc) turned his attention on Steve & baby Robert & both would have been quite safe.

Yes I agree, accidents do happen, but they happen to all of us at any time anywhere & just because the media are not there to make it public knowledge how can it be any different to what may have happened with Steve.

It's the media who are taking this out of context & making a big Whoop of it.........

Crossing the road every day is a bit risky too,but we do it. Driving a car or having a dog that may or may not attack is also risky & these things do happen, but unlike with what happend with Steve the media are not there plastering it all over the tv & newspapers & calling in the authorities.

Let it be & let Steve & Terri get on with their lives how the choose to live them. It's not for anyone else to say how they should live their lives or bring up their chidren.

 

[disneyjunkie]

Originally posted by Nutsy
Let it be & let Steve & Terri get on with their lives how the choose to live them. It's not for anyone else to say how they should live their lives or bring up their chidren.

Should this apply to all parents or just Steve and Terri?

If you do something that puts a child at risk, then you should have children services on your case.

 

[Serena]

Here's what I said on the other thread.

Do you ever let your child climb a tree? Do you ever let your child into a car? Cross the road, learn to cook on a stove? Cut an apple with a knife?
How about handling scissors, driving a car, owning a dog or cat or heavens, a snake?

There are millions of dangers that we take as common that we live with, let's not be so quick to judge the dangers others are exposed to.

 

[disneyjunkie]

Originally posted by Serena
Here's what I said on the other thread.

Do you ever let your child climb a tree? Do you ever let your child into a car? Cross the road, learn to cook on a stove? Cut an apple with a knife?
How about handling scissors, driving a car, owning a dog or cat or heavens, a snake?

There are millions of dangers that we take as common that we live with, let's not be so quick to judge the dangers others are exposed to.

There risk that we take that are a normal part of day to day life. Holding a baby over a balcony or playing with a croc while holding your baby are not normal things.

 

[Lanshark]

I've always like the guy but it showed extremely poor judgement on both parents parts. Why did he do this? There was no benefit to the child and the risk was needless. What if he had stumbled or fallen (like Roy). It's one thing to assume those risks for ourselves and another to assume them for a month old baby. What purpose, other than publicity, did this serve? To state that he had total control of the situation is arrogance when dealing with a wild animal.

He makes a lot of money taking risks. That's his decision to make. Putting a month old child in this situation was irresponsible.

 

[damo]

The risk that Steve took is not normal for us, but it is normal everyday life for him and his family. I think that is the point. What Steve did was no big deal to him. He would probably react in the same way as the GP if he saw a baby in a bike seat riding down a busy street where any second the bike driver could hit a little stone and the baby would be at the mercy of the pavement, not to mention the cars and trucks zooming by.

 

[shortbun]

I agree that Steve Irwin did not think his child was in danger.
I do. I wonder what kind of guy needs to dangle his 1 month
old child over a 13 ft alligator in front of a camera? Making his
children safe and feel safe with all the animals is certainly part
of his life.....does he need to do it on camera and with a 1 month
old baby? He's at least guilty of very bad judgement. I didn't
let my infant play with or tantalize my cat and until he was 3, the
cat was literally off limits-to protect my child and the cat. DS is
very respectful and good with all animals now and certainly did
not need to become a toy dangled over my cat at 1 month old.
Arrogant, ego-centric, self-assured, yes. The man makes his living doing dangerous things. So far his wife has stood there
in silence. Very bad judgement IMHO.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

I thought I heard on the news that the Australian people were the ones that objected to Steve's behaviour? Isn't that how it became national news?

I've always liked Steve, but I feel that he was wrong to do this. What can an infant learn from being dangled in front of a croc? What was the purpose other than to create an atmosphere of suspense? Is he that big of a thrill seeker that he would have to do something like this?

The croc doesn't have "feelings" it is a reptile. It acts on instinct. You can't "trust" it to be nice.

I don't believe that Roy's tiger was protecting him either. I don't believe that tigers are wired that way. They don't have human emotions. Thats what I've read in the biology books.

Wild animals belong in the wild.

 

[Sheree Bobbins]

After reading the posts on this thread, I remained convinced that Steve's behaviour was disgraceful and constitutes child endangerment. I feel very sorry for his children after seeing what dangers he is willing to subject them to.

I am glad I found this thread, as I really needed to see it discussed after watching the segment on tv.

 

[Nutsy]

You know so many of you are so totally missing the point here.

Steve did not at any time 'Dangle" his young son if front of the croc for heavens sake.

He dangled a dead chicken for pete's sake.

I've said before & I'll say it again.................unless you have been to the Zoo & seen the show & the way the Crocoseum is set up, you can't judge him.

The media have only the only angle on this.........not the full screen version which they should have...............that pool that the croc was in is a U shape..............

There was a woman on tv here this morning talking about the incident & she was there in the Audience on Friday.

She pointed out a very relavent fact that the media seem to wish to overlook.

You no doubt have not noticed this yoursleves, but then how could you, the media are only interested in one version........there's.

The fact is that Steve wears a head set & is in radio contact with the other handlers who are also in there with him behind, beside but all off camera.

Should the croc have made a move for Steve these guys would be over the fence in an insant with more food to entice the croc. They have practiced this many times, it was not a spur of the moment thing.

Please will you all let it rest.

Otherwise I suggest you ought to put your time & effort into making a trip over here to the Zoo to experience the show for yourself & see just how well it is set up for safety purposes.

Nobody is perfect & certainly not Steve, but why the heck can't he do what he feels is right for his kids. It's the way he was brought up & he's doing the same for his kids. It's his way of life.

We all are different & all react to things differently. What seems dangerous to us does not seem dangerous to Steve.

Last point is this............At no point throughout that show did Steve "Dangle" the baby in front of the croc...........his entire body was in front of the baby at all times. This was said from the lady who was there & saw the whole thing with her own eyes.

She also said that the picutres the media are showing the world are not the full story. Just what they want to show. Does not in any way give a true indication of just what did go on.

 

[sha_lyn]

Nutsy ...

You bring up some very good points. When watching the Croc Files (show behind the scenes footage) it is very clear that there is always a team a trained "helpers" just out of camera range.

When they do the episodes at the zoo in the croc pits, the helpers have had to come out of no where a few times. This is usually when Steve and a couple more are trying to catch a Croc and one of the ropes around the croc slip. This team dives on top on and immobilizes the croc within just a couple of seconds.

If you do something that puts a child at risk, then you should have children services on your case.

Every parent has put their child at risk at some point. Children die on bicycles, on cars, choke to death on hot dogs etc. What do you think should be done to parents who put their children in danger by letting their children ride bikes, ride in cars or eat hot dogs?