‘Croc Hunter' feeds crocodile with baby (watch video!)

Christopher Browne wrote in message ...
In the last exciting episode, (-L.) wrote:
"Bob Myers" wrote in message ...
"-L." wrote in message
m...
Oh, please! At one month old?!? This was a sick pub stunt, that's
all. They should take the kid away from that nutcase.

OK, so exactly how do you think Irwin was endangering
the child?

If he dropped the kid, it'd be chicken meat. Besides that, WHY take
a 1 month old in with the croc, anyway? The kid clearly is too
young to "learn" from the sexperience. It was a pointless pub
stunt.

Yes, it's fair to say that this is really rather early for the child
to be capable of "learning" from it. You don't let 18 month olds that
are still figuring out how to keep themselves upright around candles;
they're still too young to figure out that "that neat bright thing" is
going to cause them to go "OUCH!!!"

Of course, it's also fair to say that dropping a kid can cause damage
and even death even in the absence of nearby carnivorous reptiles.

He's clearly an expert in handling these animals,

No, CLEARLY he ****s up on a regular basis. He's always getting
nailed by some creature or another - even the "crocs" he supposedly
such an expert with.

No, that is NOT clear.

1. If the critters are inherently unpredictable, to some extent, then
it does NOT require "messing up" in order for surprises to happen.

Well, it pretty much does with snakes. I know; I keep snakes. The
guy cointinually holds snakes in an unsafe way, in the middle, giving
them no support to their hind section, and extending their neck/heads.
The head is almost always free to rear around and nail him. He gets
nailed by them on a frequent basis, a lot of time in the face.



2. "Expertise" may, even then, be the difference between needing some
stitches and funeral curtains.

Didn't help Roy Horn much, did it?



and he was surrounded by a similarly highly-trained staff who could
have quickly come to his rescue (and it would be HIS rescue, not
the baby's, as Irwin was clearly keeping himself as the potential
target for the croc if anyone was) in the highly unlikely case of
the croc successfully attacking him.

He drops the kid, goes for the grab and the the baby flips to the
other side - and then the croc goes for the grab - not too far
fetched a scenario.

Maybe, maybe not.

Of course, if he has had enough good espresso, it's _sure_ not to be a
problem. (Obligatory coffee comment :-).)

Only if made with REAL coffee: 100% Kona.

-L.
(jk)

ospam (Yngver) wrote in message ...
itty (Sherry ) wrote:

The one thing that someone who has studied animals should know, above all, is
that they are unpredictable. It's one thing for Irwin to put himself in such
close proximity to a crocodile, but he shouldn't have been holding an infant.

First off, how do you know the proximity in which Irwin was in was dangerous?
Do you know exactly how far a crocodile can reach, or lunge? And how fast, on
land? I imagine Irwin does.

Secondly, people keep stating that wild animals are unpredictable, but in
thinking about it, it makes more sense to me now to realize that actually
animals (wild or not) are fairly predictable.

Reptiles have extremely primative brains - brains which have not
changed much in about 250 million years (for crocs). They act on
instinct alone. The only reason these things *look* trained is
because they are reacting to the food instinct. Big loaf man standing
there = food. They don't care how they get it, the just know they are
getting a signal to GET FOOD. There is nothing predictable about
them. You can train yourself to react to their cues, but you can't
predict what will happen 100% of the time. I don't care how good a
reptile handler is, they get bitten. All of them do, sooner or later.

-L.

ospam (Yngver) wrote in message ...
itty (Sherry ) wrote:

The one thing that someone who has studied animals should know, above all, is
that they are unpredictable. It's one thing for Irwin to put himself in such
close proximity to a crocodile, but he shouldn't have been holding an infant.

First off, how do you know the proximity in which Irwin was in was dangerous?
Do you know exactly how far a crocodile can reach, or lunge? And how fast, on
land? I imagine Irwin does.

Secondly, people keep stating that wild animals are unpredictable, but in
thinking about it, it makes more sense to me now to realize that actually
animals (wild or not) are fairly predictable.

Reptiles have extremely primative brains - brains which have not
changed much in about 250 million years (for crocs). They act on
instinct alone. The only reason these things *look* trained is
because they are reacting to the food instinct. Big loaf man standing
there = food. They don't care how they get it, the just know they are
getting a signal to GET FOOD. There is nothing predictable about
them. You can train yourself to react to their cues, but you can't
predict what will happen 100% of the time. I don't care how good a
reptile handler is, they get bitten. All of them do, sooner or later.

-L.

"Yngver" wrote in message
...
"Judy F" wrote:

Roy knew his way around big cats and the tiger still attacked him. Wild
animals are unpredictable and why take a chance with a one month old
baby?

Nonsense. People make too many snap judgments before learning the details.

First off, did the tiger attack Roy? Or is that just your assumption?
Siegfried, who unlike the media or most other people spouting off on the
subject, was actually there and saw what happened, said that Roy either
fainted
or suffered a stroke onstage and when he began to fall, the tiger siezed
him to
try to carry him offstage to safety. In S's estimation, the tiger was
trying to
protect Roy. Since his doctors have not released many details about the
injuries, what you have read in media reports is based on speculation and
what
the audience thought they saw.


Yes, I heard that too. .... quite possible, proving that even if a wild
animal *isn't* trying to attack... just by the nature of it's size and
capabilities, it can cause quite a lot of harm to a much smaller
creature/man.

Frankly, I'm sure there were many people around to rescue the baby if
needed... . just makes Irwin look like a crimy goof.




As for Steve Irwin, his family residence is 100 ft. from his crocodile
enclosure. His father exposed him to crocodile handling when he was a
child and
he's doing the same thing. He and his family live and work around
crocodiles
every day, in a way that most of the people criticizing him cannot
understand.

As another crocodile expert pointed out, he viewed the video and he did
not see
any danger to the baby, but that's because he knows crocodiles and isn't
afraid
of them. Most people are not crocodile experts and therefore perceive
danger.
For example, until Irwin explained it, I didn't know that when a crocodile
has
its back legs extended it can't leap forward. But of course, since Irwin
does
know crocodile behavior, he could see that the croc was not going to
suddenly
lunge at him or the baby. He was in a far better position to judge whether
there was any risk to his baby than are all the people who are now so
quick to
condemn him for what they perceived as dangerous.

You know, domestic animals can be unpredictable too. Even people. A
blanket
statement like "wild animals can be unpredictable" fosters irrational fear
rather than understanding.

"Yngver" wrote in message
...
"Judy F" wrote:

Roy knew his way around big cats and the tiger still attacked him. Wild
animals are unpredictable and why take a chance with a one month old
baby?

Nonsense. People make too many snap judgments before learning the details.

First off, did the tiger attack Roy? Or is that just your assumption?
Siegfried, who unlike the media or most other people spouting off on the
subject, was actually there and saw what happened, said that Roy either
fainted
or suffered a stroke onstage and when he began to fall, the tiger siezed
him to
try to carry him offstage to safety. In S's estimation, the tiger was
trying to
protect Roy. Since his doctors have not released many details about the
injuries, what you have read in media reports is based on speculation and
what
the audience thought they saw.


Yes, I heard that too. .... quite possible, proving that even if a wild
animal *isn't* trying to attack... just by the nature of it's size and
capabilities, it can cause quite a lot of harm to a much smaller
creature/man.

Frankly, I'm sure there were many people around to rescue the baby if
needed... . just makes Irwin look like a crimy goof.




As for Steve Irwin, his family residence is 100 ft. from his crocodile
enclosure. His father exposed him to crocodile handling when he was a
child and
he's doing the same thing. He and his family live and work around
crocodiles
every day, in a way that most of the people criticizing him cannot
understand.

As another crocodile expert pointed out, he viewed the video and he did
not see
any danger to the baby, but that's because he knows crocodiles and isn't
afraid
of them. Most people are not crocodile experts and therefore perceive
danger.
For example, until Irwin explained it, I didn't know that when a crocodile
has
its back legs extended it can't leap forward. But of course, since Irwin
does
know crocodile behavior, he could see that the croc was not going to
suddenly
lunge at him or the baby. He was in a far better position to judge whether
there was any risk to his baby than are all the people who are now so
quick to
condemn him for what they perceived as dangerous.

You know, domestic animals can be unpredictable too. Even people. A
blanket
statement like "wild animals can be unpredictable" fosters irrational fear
rather than understanding.

-L. wrote:
Reptiles have extremely primative brains - brains which have not
changed much in about 250 million years (for crocs). They act on
instinct alone. The only reason these things *look* trained is

Yes, reptiles do have very primitive brains, but I will point out you are
underestimating them. They don't act on instinct alone period. They can
recognize people (some more than others, snakes tend to be the stupidest
of the reptiles and even they have a limited amount of ability to learn.
For example if you have one and don't handle it all the time and only open
it's cage for food, t's going to associate you opening the cage with food.
That's actually learning believe it or not cause it's not natural for them
to know a cage or to know it being opened = food). Secondly, if they acted
only on instinct, that would mean they would be a hellava lot easier to
predict (if I do this, instinct will make it do this). All you have to
know is what the extinct was. Being able to act on their own motives is
what makes unpredictability. Your argumenet makes no sense in other words.

Alice

--
The root cause of problems is simple overpopulation. People just aren't
worth very much any more, and they know it. Makes 'em testy. ...Bev
|\ _,,,---,,_ Tigress
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://havoc.gtf.gatech.edu/tigress
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat by Felix Lee.

-L. wrote:
Reptiles have extremely primative brains - brains which have not
changed much in about 250 million years (for crocs). They act on
instinct alone. The only reason these things *look* trained is

Yes, reptiles do have very primitive brains, but I will point out you are
underestimating them. They don't act on instinct alone period. They can
recognize people (some more than others, snakes tend to be the stupidest
of the reptiles and even they have a limited amount of ability to learn.
For example if you have one and don't handle it all the time and only open
it's cage for food, t's going to associate you opening the cage with food.
That's actually learning believe it or not cause it's not natural for them
to know a cage or to know it being opened = food). Secondly, if they acted
only on instinct, that would mean they would be a hellava lot easier to
predict (if I do this, instinct will make it do this). All you have to
know is what the extinct was. Being able to act on their own motives is
what makes unpredictability. Your argumenet makes no sense in other words.

Alice

--
The root cause of problems is simple overpopulation. People just aren't
worth very much any more, and they know it. Makes 'em testy. ...Bev
|\ _,,,---,,_ Tigress
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://havoc.gtf.gatech.edu/tigress
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat by Felix Lee.

"Judy F" wrote:

Sorry, I don't buy it. Siegfried was trying to protect the tigers by
spinning it in the best light he could.

Oh, I see. You were there, you saw it happen, you know Roy and the tiger as
well as Siegried does, so you are in a position to determine that he is lying.

Just as in the case with Steve Irwin, you are passing judgment on an incident
about which you really don't know the facts.


The bottom line is a wild animal is
just that.... a wild animal. It's doing what is instinctual for it, and if
something happens it's the fault of the human who underestimated it.

As another poster pointed out, if animals always behaved according to instinct,
they would be entirely predictable.

I don't
blame wild animals for being what they are. That said, I don't think the
place for a one month old baby is in close proximity to a wild animal.

That's because you aren't Steve or Terri Irwin.

Judy F

"Yngver" wrote in message
...
"Judy F" wrote:

Roy knew his way around big cats and the tiger still attacked him. Wild
animals are unpredictable and why take a chance with a one month old
baby?

Nonsense. People make too many snap judgments before learning the details.

First off, did the tiger attack Roy? Or is that just your assumption?
Siegfried, who unlike the media or most other people spouting off on the
subject, was actually there and saw what happened, said that Roy either
fainted
or suffered a stroke onstage and when he began to fall, the tiger siezed
him to
try to carry him offstage to safety. In S's estimation, the tiger was
trying to
protect Roy. Since his doctors have not released many details about the
injuries, what you have read in media reports is based on speculation and
what
the audience thought they saw.

As for Steve Irwin, his family residence is 100 ft. from his crocodile
enclosure. His father exposed him to crocodile handling when he was a
child and
he's doing the same thing. He and his family live and work around
crocodiles
every day, in a way that most of the people criticizing him cannot
understand.

As another crocodile expert pointed out, he viewed the video and he did
not see
any danger to the baby, but that's because he knows crocodiles and isn't
afraid
of them. Most people are not crocodile experts and therefore perceive
danger.
For example, until Irwin explained it, I didn't know that when a crocodile
has
its back legs extended it can't leap forward. But of course, since Irwin
does
know crocodile behavior, he could see that the croc was not going to
suddenly
lunge at him or the baby. He was in a far better position to judge whether
there was any risk to his baby than are all the people who are now so
quick to
condemn him for what they perceived as dangerous.

You know, domestic animals can be unpredictable too. Even people. A
blanket
statement like "wild animals can be unpredictable" fosters irrational fear
rather than understanding.

"Judy F" wrote:

Sorry, I don't buy it. Siegfried was trying to protect the tigers by
spinning it in the best light he could.

Oh, I see. You were there, you saw it happen, you know Roy and the tiger as
well as Siegried does, so you are in a position to determine that he is lying.

Just as in the case with Steve Irwin, you are passing judgment on an incident
about which you really don't know the facts.


The bottom line is a wild animal is
just that.... a wild animal. It's doing what is instinctual for it, and if
something happens it's the fault of the human who underestimated it.

As another poster pointed out, if animals always behaved according to instinct,
they would be entirely predictable.

I don't
blame wild animals for being what they are. That said, I don't think the
place for a one month old baby is in close proximity to a wild animal.

That's because you aren't Steve or Terri Irwin.

Judy F

"Yngver" wrote in message
...
"Judy F" wrote:

Roy knew his way around big cats and the tiger still attacked him. Wild
animals are unpredictable and why take a chance with a one month old
baby?

Nonsense. People make too many snap judgments before learning the details.

First off, did the tiger attack Roy? Or is that just your assumption?
Siegfried, who unlike the media or most other people spouting off on the
subject, was actually there and saw what happened, said that Roy either
fainted
or suffered a stroke onstage and when he began to fall, the tiger siezed
him to
try to carry him offstage to safety. In S's estimation, the tiger was
trying to
protect Roy. Since his doctors have not released many details about the
injuries, what you have read in media reports is based on speculation and
what
the audience thought they saw.

As for Steve Irwin, his family residence is 100 ft. from his crocodile
enclosure. His father exposed him to crocodile handling when he was a
child and
he's doing the same thing. He and his family live and work around
crocodiles
every day, in a way that most of the people criticizing him cannot
understand.

As another crocodile expert pointed out, he viewed the video and he did
not see
any danger to the baby, but that's because he knows crocodiles and isn't
afraid
of them. Most people are not crocodile experts and therefore perceive
danger.
For example, until Irwin explained it, I didn't know that when a crocodile
has
its back legs extended it can't leap forward. But of course, since Irwin
does
know crocodile behavior, he could see that the croc was not going to
suddenly
lunge at him or the baby. He was in a far better position to judge whether
there was any risk to his baby than are all the people who are now so
quick to
condemn him for what they perceived as dangerous.

You know, domestic animals can be unpredictable too. Even people. A
blanket
statement like "wild animals can be unpredictable" fosters irrational fear
rather than understanding.

itty (Sherry ) wrote:

Do you know exactly how far a crocodile can reach, or lunge?

No, I don't. Nor do I know why he was wagging a month-old baby while feeding
it
in the first place. I daresay Bob didn't learn anything from the experience,
so
it could very well be a slick publicity stunt. I also know that month-old
infants can hardly hold their heads up well, so why in the world was he
"walking" that baby on the ground in a later clip?

I will grant you that the one thing I did wonder is why Irwin would think a one
month old baby could understand what he was showing him, but I chalk it up to
Irwin being a proud papa who wants to share his world and the things that give
him joy with his new son. Terri, his wife, said the baby "dug it." Since they
did the same sorts of things with their first child, I'm guessing they feel
it's best for their children to help them become accustomed and learn about the
zoo they live in from infancy.

Secondly, people keep stating that wild animals are unpredictable, but in
thinking about it, it makes more sense to me now to realize that actually
animals (wild or not) are fairly predictable.

I just don't agree at all. At our zoo, a zookeeper's arm was bitten
completely
off by a tapur (sp?) who never showed any aggression, ever, and the handler
also thought she could predict its behavior and was in control. A friend of
my
daughter's was killed years ago when she walked behind her own horse that she
had grown up with -- the horse had never kicked before. And the stories could
go on and on. I just don't believe anyone should ever get too comfortable and
think animal is "predictable" *or* that one is in "complete control" when
you're messing with a wild animal weighing hundreds of pounds.
Just respect them.

I'm sure Irwin respects the animals he keeps and handles, as well as the
problem crocs he captures to relocate. Again, your assumption was that he was
close enough to the croc for something to happen--but he, along with other
crocodile experts, say he was not.