Chiff and Fipple Forums

Correct addition - gotta love it! Good one.

Ahh, but Steve Irwin still has the ratings!!!

~Larry

madguy wrote:Susan,
Would you join those animals?

~Larry

Excuse me?

Would you be one of those animals Steve Irwin crept upon?

~Larry

My first thought, Madguy, is that it's pretty early in the day to be hitting the bottle.
My second thought is that your post doesn't warrant a second thought.

But still you replied!

~Larry

The statement to the world at large is what bothers me. Irwin said he was in total control of the animal. I would expect someone more responsibly to say that one is never entirely in complete control of an animal. I've had various domesticated cats as pets all my life and all that are now gone lived to ages between 19 and 24 years, and were much loved and loving. Even with these, I would never leave my face exposed to their claws for fear of an accidental clawing rather than a hostile attack. Animals get startled by a variety of things that do not startle us as well as a host of other reactions that we don't really understand. My daughter grows up loving and respecting animals but aware of the fact that no animal that's fully awake (i.e., not artificially and completely tranquilized) is under our "complete control." My two cents and no more...

PhilO

The Weekenders wrote:Just read it at the site, Cran. You don't have to subscribe. Now, if you are a big Steve Irwin fan, you might find something to be offended about...

I wonder what the mainstream Aussies have to say about him these days.

He's the guy with the 'personality' isn't he? I doubt whether I qualify as mainstream but the consensus of opinion over the baby-in-the-croc-pen incident is that the guy is demented. That happens to be my opinion too.

I think Madguy defended the incident on the ground that the child wasn't in serious danger. That was part of Irwin's defense too. It's true but quite beside the point.

The odds of the child being hurt or killed were quite low; we take bigger risks every day. That does not mean that Irwin's actions were defensible. Ordinary risk assessment is not a well understood art but one thing is clear .. we regard it as irresponsible for parents to take unnecessary risks with their infant children, even if the probability of their being harmed is vanishingly small. Suppose we have been told that a blackmailer has tampered with a single bottle of baby food and we have been told the brand. We remove all items of the possibly contminated kind from shop shelves even though the chance that any one such item is contaminated is vanishingly small. This is because there is nothing to gain by taking a risk and the consequences of being unlucky are very great indeed. This was precisely the situation with Irwin's stunt.

The other part of Irwin's defense was equally ridiculous. He claimed that his children live in a different and dangerous environment and need to learn about the dangers as early as possible. This is no doubt true. But again it is beside the point. The infant involved was far too young to learn any lesson from the incident which was clearly a publicity stunt. It only worked as a stunt because people thought the child was in greater danger than he actually was. Since the stunt involved a small element of risk and was utterly unnecessary, it was in my view quite indefensible.

Yes, animals can come a long way in terms of relating to kind humans (our cats are like people most of the time), but we have to always respect that they are not people, and that they can hurt us if they feel threatened by anything. My mom can't understand why Luna doesn't like it when she (my mom) picks her up, turns her upside down and kisses her belly. She sees me do it all the time, but when she does it, Luna freaks out. It doesn't surprise me. I am Luna's human (so is Dan, now). I know how to read her moods, how to make her feel supported. Sola, of course, wouldn't hurt a fly. She has never scratched anyone or anything. But I still respect her personal space and let her pet my hand (for the first stroke of an encounter) rather than using my hand to pet her face. I couldn't imagine trusting a wild animal the way Steve Irwin does. It's not realistic. But I have no doubt that he would have given his own limbs to save his child, if it had come to that.

For the record, I am completely aware of all information about Toxoplasmosis and am not being an irresponsible mom-to-be.

PhilO wrote:The statement to the world at large is what bothers me. Irwin said he was in total control of the animal. I would expect someone more responsibly to say that one is never entirely in complete control of an animal. I've had various domesticated cats as pets all my life and all that are now gone lived to ages between 19 and 24 years, and were much loved and loving. Even with these, I would never leave my face exposed to their claws for fear of an accidental clawing rather than a hostile attack. Animals get startled by a variety of things that do not startle us as well as a host of other reactions that we don't really understand. My daughter grows up loving and respecting animals but aware of the fact that no animal that's fully awake (i.e., not artificially and completely tranquilized) is under our "complete control." My two cents and no more...

PhilO

Of course, domestic cats are the most uncontrollable animal of all... at least it seems that way!

Never smile at a crocodile,
No you can't get friendly with a crocodile
Don't be taken in by his friendly grin
He's just wondering how well you'll fit
within his skin.

Never smile at a crocodile
Never tip your hat and stop to talk awhile,
Never run, walk away,
Say goodbye, not good day,
Clear the aisle and never smile
At Mr. Crocodile.

You may very well be well bred,
Lot's of ettiquette in your head,
But there's always one special case,
Time or place to forget ettiquette,
For instance... Back to the beginning.

My two cents, musical support for
Wombat's view... Best

I can't help it if I know lots of crocodile poems...


I give to you Professor Twist
A conscientious scientist.
Trustees exclaimed: 'He never bungles!'
And sent him off to distant jungles.

Whilel there he learned his lovely bride
Was missing by the riverside.
She had, the guide informed him later,
Been eaten by an alligator.
Professor Twist could not but smile:
'It was,' he said, 'a crocodile.'

Ogden Nash

While we're on the subject of poetry,
I thought Dale's poem in the newsletter,
'What child is this?' is perfect.

To put this incident in perspective, just last week a teenaged boy was eaten by a crocodile and his friends had to be rescued by helicopter from the tree in which they were sheltering in Northern Australia. The croc stalked the surviving boys for over a day, flaunting his prize from time to time. The boys who survived pointed out that that they, and others, had been boating in this area for years and had never spotted a saltwater croc before. Some prize for being the first to spot one eh?

Crocs are nasty, no question.