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

"Cat Protector" wrote:

The worst thing about Irwin is that he said if given the chance he'd do it
again without the camera around.

I hope he does. Living on the zoo grounds it's important his kids learn how to
properly interact with the animals there.

I guess he is one of those people that
simply does not learn. I think your reasoning is a bit falwed here. Horses
don't eat babies but a croc will.

That's just stupid. You don't think a horse can kill a baby? I'll just bet a
lot more children are injured each year by horses than by crocodiles.
Statistically most accidents with horses happen when the horse becomes
spooked--which is probably what Irwin was referring to. He obviously considers
crocodiles more predictable than horses.


Irwin seems to make excuses for doing what
he did but to put a child in that kind of danger like that is wrong.

You don't even know what actually happened nor are you qualified to judge the
level of risk in the situation, yet you feel you can comfortably condemn a man.
Sad.

Someone who has lived with, handled, studied and cared for a particular
animal,
wild or not, knows it pretty well.


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.

Sherry

Someone who has lived with, handled, studied and cared for a particular
animal,
wild or not, knows it pretty well.


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.

Sherry

"Cat Protector" wrote in message
news:13DKb.55737$PK3.897@okepread01...
Let me see, he could have fallen and the croc could have grabbed that
child.

And every time you take a child onto the interstate highway in
your car, you're exposing said child to literally thousands of
very large, heavy metal objects passing within 10 feet or so
at upwards of 60 MPH or so. There is a near-infinite list of
"could haves" with just about everything we do in this life; the
fact that Irwin is alive and still in possession of all his original
parts, given his chosen profession, strongly suggests that he is
very, very unlikely to have any such trouble. He does this sort
of thing DAILY. You wouldn't, and I wouldn't, and that's good,
because we don't know how. He does. Irwin's comments
regarding the difference between PERCEIVED and ACTUAL
danger were right on target.


Irwin can say all he wants how experienced he is but what slip up and that
kid would have become the croc's lunch. I don't know of too many people
who
would take that kind of risk. Your reasoning is like saying it'd be ok for
a
police officer to use a child as a shield if a bullet was coming straight
at
him.

Nonsense. The situations are not at all analogous, and I think
you know that.


BTW, Ray Horn supposedly has experience with tigers but still it took
just one to land him in the hospital breathing through a tube.

He took a very different sort of risk, and frankly, I am NOT
all that impressed with Horn's demonstrated expertise regarding
dealing with animals.

In your
reasoning, you missed Irwin's statement saying that it is more likely for
a
meteor hitting Australia (or something of that nature) to get him to fall.
People fall every day without the impact of a meteor. Your hero Irwin also
stated in regards to his child, ""I would never, ever put him in any
danger,
not in a million years." Yet, he took his son into the enclosure with a
dangerous animal.

I have taken my child many times in to "enclosures" with the
most dangerous animal known to exist. They're called
"people"...


I used to like the Crocodile Hunter but now Iriwn has
allowed the fame to go to his head and thus he pulls stunts like this one
just to stay in the spotlight. No child should be put in danger.

I would agree - if you could convince me that there was
actually a significant danger here. When it comes to assessing
the danger posed by a particular animal in a particular situation -
especially an animal with which Irwin is very familiar - I will tend
to accept his judgement on that over yours, unless you can
present some evidence to suggest that you have more knowledge
here.


It might interest you to know that a croc farm owner (who probably has
experience with crocs) also thought what Irwin did was idiotic. Someone I
know from Australia has said in the past that not too many Aussies like
Irwin and feel he has a rather large ego.

Who was it who said "it ain't braggin' if you can actually do it!"? :-)


Despite Child Services in
Australia stating, "they (the Irwins) claim that the child was not in
danger. They understand people's concerns and have assured Children's
Services that it won't happen again,"

What else are they going to say? Irwin and family are,
unfortunately for them, very much in the public eye.

Irwin said he'd have no problem
putting his child in front of a croc again like that only he'd do it with
no
cameras around. Besides, if something tragic happened and a croc grabs the
child Irwin's fame would get him out of it. If this had been any other
person, right now they'd be behind bars.

If this had been any other person, it's not very likely that
they would have a comparable level of expertise and experience
- so it would NOT be a comparable situation. On the other hand,
had it been any other person, you also would never, ever have
heard about it. Go to any zoo, wildlife park, "dude ranch", etc. on
any day, and you can see parents doing remarkably stupid things
with respect to their children around large animals. And these
people clearly DO NOT know what the hell they are doing. Yet
you will never see THAT on the evening news, unless something
goes tragically wrong.


Irwin used poor judgment and for
him to state he'd have no problems doing this again shows just what lousy
parents he and his wife are (she has backed him on this and also handed
him
the baby in the first incident).

That you would make such a statement simply convinces me
that you are very quick to make baseless judgements, based
in near-total ignorance. You were NOT there, you did NOT see
anything except the selected bits of the video that have been shown
in the media, and yet you feel completely qualified to judge a
complete stranger's parenting abilities.

Bob M.

"Cat Protector" wrote in message
news:13DKb.55737$PK3.897@okepread01...
Let me see, he could have fallen and the croc could have grabbed that
child.

And every time you take a child onto the interstate highway in
your car, you're exposing said child to literally thousands of
very large, heavy metal objects passing within 10 feet or so
at upwards of 60 MPH or so. There is a near-infinite list of
"could haves" with just about everything we do in this life; the
fact that Irwin is alive and still in possession of all his original
parts, given his chosen profession, strongly suggests that he is
very, very unlikely to have any such trouble. He does this sort
of thing DAILY. You wouldn't, and I wouldn't, and that's good,
because we don't know how. He does. Irwin's comments
regarding the difference between PERCEIVED and ACTUAL
danger were right on target.


Irwin can say all he wants how experienced he is but what slip up and that
kid would have become the croc's lunch. I don't know of too many people
who
would take that kind of risk. Your reasoning is like saying it'd be ok for
a
police officer to use a child as a shield if a bullet was coming straight
at
him.

Nonsense. The situations are not at all analogous, and I think
you know that.


BTW, Ray Horn supposedly has experience with tigers but still it took
just one to land him in the hospital breathing through a tube.

He took a very different sort of risk, and frankly, I am NOT
all that impressed with Horn's demonstrated expertise regarding
dealing with animals.

In your
reasoning, you missed Irwin's statement saying that it is more likely for
a
meteor hitting Australia (or something of that nature) to get him to fall.
People fall every day without the impact of a meteor. Your hero Irwin also
stated in regards to his child, ""I would never, ever put him in any
danger,
not in a million years." Yet, he took his son into the enclosure with a
dangerous animal.

I have taken my child many times in to "enclosures" with the
most dangerous animal known to exist. They're called
"people"...


I used to like the Crocodile Hunter but now Iriwn has
allowed the fame to go to his head and thus he pulls stunts like this one
just to stay in the spotlight. No child should be put in danger.

I would agree - if you could convince me that there was
actually a significant danger here. When it comes to assessing
the danger posed by a particular animal in a particular situation -
especially an animal with which Irwin is very familiar - I will tend
to accept his judgement on that over yours, unless you can
present some evidence to suggest that you have more knowledge
here.


It might interest you to know that a croc farm owner (who probably has
experience with crocs) also thought what Irwin did was idiotic. Someone I
know from Australia has said in the past that not too many Aussies like
Irwin and feel he has a rather large ego.

Who was it who said "it ain't braggin' if you can actually do it!"? :-)


Despite Child Services in
Australia stating, "they (the Irwins) claim that the child was not in
danger. They understand people's concerns and have assured Children's
Services that it won't happen again,"

What else are they going to say? Irwin and family are,
unfortunately for them, very much in the public eye.

Irwin said he'd have no problem
putting his child in front of a croc again like that only he'd do it with
no
cameras around. Besides, if something tragic happened and a croc grabs the
child Irwin's fame would get him out of it. If this had been any other
person, right now they'd be behind bars.

If this had been any other person, it's not very likely that
they would have a comparable level of expertise and experience
- so it would NOT be a comparable situation. On the other hand,
had it been any other person, you also would never, ever have
heard about it. Go to any zoo, wildlife park, "dude ranch", etc. on
any day, and you can see parents doing remarkably stupid things
with respect to their children around large animals. And these
people clearly DO NOT know what the hell they are doing. Yet
you will never see THAT on the evening news, unless something
goes tragically wrong.


Irwin used poor judgment and for
him to state he'd have no problems doing this again shows just what lousy
parents he and his wife are (she has backed him on this and also handed
him
the baby in the first incident).

That you would make such a statement simply convinces me
that you are very quick to make baseless judgements, based
in near-total ignorance. You were NOT there, you did NOT see
anything except the selected bits of the video that have been shown
in the media, and yet you feel completely qualified to judge a
complete stranger's parenting abilities.

Bob M.

"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.

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.


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.

Just because YOU do not know how to handle a
given situation safely

This is not about ME, asshole. END of conversation.

-L.

"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.

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.


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.

Just because YOU do not know how to handle a
given situation safely

This is not about ME, asshole. END of conversation.

-L.

Bob Myers" wrote:
"Cat Protector" wrote in message
news:13DKb.55737$PK3.897@okepread01...

Irwin used poor judgment and for
him to state he'd have no problems doing this again shows just what lousy
parents he and his wife are (she has backed him on this and also handed
him
the baby in the first incident).

That you would make such a statement simply convinces me
that you are very quick to make baseless judgements, based
in near-total ignorance. You were NOT there, you did NOT see
anything except the selected bits of the video that have been shown
in the media, and yet you feel completely qualified to judge a
complete stranger's parenting abilities.

Yep, that about describes CP in nutshell. Precisely what I said.

Here's a quote from an actual crocodile expert who, unlike CP, knows what he's
talking about:

"John Weigel, owner of the Australian Reptile Park at Gosford and friend of
Irwin, leapt to his defence, saying the salty had no chance of reaching the
baby. "If that was a lion (it) could run forward and capture the child, (but)
the reality of a 12-foot crocodile with tiny legs and enormous mass it doesn't
happen." "

There is a reason that Irwin snatched up the baby and retreated the minute the
crocodile slithered back into the water. That's because he knows (unlike CP,
evidently) that crocodiles on land are clumsy and slow and can't run nearly as
fast as a man can, but in the water it's an entirely different story.

The best outcome for this controversy would be if it helped educate people
about crocodile behavior and dispelled some myths, but I imagine there are many
people who have already made up their minds and stopped listening.

Bob Myers" wrote:
"Cat Protector" wrote in message
news:13DKb.55737$PK3.897@okepread01...

Irwin used poor judgment and for
him to state he'd have no problems doing this again shows just what lousy
parents he and his wife are (she has backed him on this and also handed
him
the baby in the first incident).

That you would make such a statement simply convinces me
that you are very quick to make baseless judgements, based
in near-total ignorance. You were NOT there, you did NOT see
anything except the selected bits of the video that have been shown
in the media, and yet you feel completely qualified to judge a
complete stranger's parenting abilities.

Yep, that about describes CP in nutshell. Precisely what I said.

Here's a quote from an actual crocodile expert who, unlike CP, knows what he's
talking about:

"John Weigel, owner of the Australian Reptile Park at Gosford and friend of
Irwin, leapt to his defence, saying the salty had no chance of reaching the
baby. "If that was a lion (it) could run forward and capture the child, (but)
the reality of a 12-foot crocodile with tiny legs and enormous mass it doesn't
happen." "

There is a reason that Irwin snatched up the baby and retreated the minute the
crocodile slithered back into the water. That's because he knows (unlike CP,
evidently) that crocodiles on land are clumsy and slow and can't run nearly as
fast as a man can, but in the water it's an entirely different story.

The best outcome for this controversy would be if it helped educate people
about crocodile behavior and dispelled some myths, but I imagine there are many
people who have already made up their minds and stopped listening.

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. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to
understand or interact very well with them. If you study, say, squirrels, you
soon learn to be able to predict how squirrels are likely to behave in a given
situation. For example, I can predict with great accuracy that when I go
outside in the morning, a certain squirrel will come up to me hoping I will
give him a peanut. And I can predict how he will behave, depending on whether
or not I offer a peanut.

Perhaps you mean animals are not 100% predictable, but no living creature is.