STEVE Irwin sparked outrage yesterday when he held his baby son a metre from the mouth of a crocodile at his Queensland zoo.Child advocates branded the Crocodile Hunter reckless for holding one-month-old Bob while feeding the giant crocodile a dead chicken.
Read entire article with photo here.
You don't need to teach a 4 week old to be 'croc savy'. Irwin at this point is no better than Jackson dangling his kid over a railing.
ps. His wife is just as fucking nuts as he is. If you have not seen it, try to catch the rerun of them on Larry King.
I've got to agree with you there! What was he thinking?? He wasn't! He's a few fries short of a happy meal.
Posted by: Dianne on January 4, 2004 08:13 PMHe's gone to the point where he truly believes no animal will do anything he doesn't let them do. People like that tend to get smacked down by reality sooner or later... I'd bet he's going to lose a limb by the end of the decade, if not the year.
Posted by: Tatterdemalian on January 4, 2004 11:13 PMI know I wil be the minority here, par for the course actually, but I'm not as outraged as everyone else.
This guy has been around these animals as long as he has been around humans. The photo used in this article is a little misleading on the closeness of the animal with the child and a diferent camera angle shows a better distance. Don't forget about the 6 other handles that were there and ready to pounce on less then a moments notice.
This is not even close to the Wacko-Jacko baby dangling in my opinion. It's not MJ's job to dangle things from balconies, but it is Irwin's life to know the animals he works with.
Just my humble, probably soon to be heavily debated opinion.
Posted by: Joshua on January 5, 2004 10:14 AMIt has to mean something when I disagree with Joshua on political things but agree with him on most other stuff. Third sign of the apocalypse? Shows that we're drinking too much? Who knows.
At any rate, the point is well made and well taken. I think it's closer to the Jacko thing than he does, because they were both essentially publicity stunts that got a little out of hand.
But all this clucking of disapproval in the media (and here) smacks more than a little of nanny-ism. It's his kid. As long as what he's doing doesn't break any laws, to hell with the rest of us.
Why yes, I'm a libertarian. Why do you ask? :)
Posted by: Scott on January 5, 2004 04:37 PMOkay, gotta say a few things on this. I'd never do something like that.
Of course, I'd never get inside a fence with a crocodile in the first place...
Then again, I'm not a man who makes his day-to-day living handling these animals. What looks bloody mindless and reckless to us was probably planned to a T and safetied a hundred ways from Sunday. Keep in mind that, Like any other stuntman, Steve Irwin makes his living by making what he does look incredibly dangerous to the audience at home, while ensuring that it's profoundly safe in reality.
And playing devil's advocate here, one might ask precisely when someone should start making their children savvy with the animals their parents deal with and which the children will be around on a daily basis. Consider also that people regularly expose children and even infants to what would be regarded as extremely dangerous by an uninformed outsider.... infant swimming lessons, for instance. Or the casual, day to day upbringing of circus kids--- I can't even imagine putting one of my nieces on the flying trapeze, for instance, but to a carnie family it's just family business.
Posted by: RHJunior on January 6, 2004 01:03 AMRoy had been around cats for a long time too, stupid.
Posted by: John C. Anderson on January 7, 2004 05:38 PM