Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FUNKED1 on September 05, 2006, 07:42:52 PM
-
In light of Steve Irwin's passing, I recommend watching this film. Tragicomicumentary. For every Steve Irwin there's a hundred guys who don't make it to the Discovery Channel. Grizzly Man is about one of those guys.
-
Is that he one with the kook that went to live by the Grizzlies and filmed himself and we got to watch him slowly get more and more irrational till he obviously went completely insane insane.
Then one of the grizzlies ate him? LOL
Saw it
One less pollutent in the gene pool
-
Seen it.
I got the impression that he spent his entire life with the whites of his eyes showing. He had no sense of danger at all. It not only caused his own death, but that of an innocent, trusting girl.
And yet, he's an environmental hero to some. Lord help the poor young soul who's inspired to follow his example.
Regards, Shuckins
-
He's bear scat now; too bad about the girl.
-
that person was no steve irwin, too bad about the outcome though
-
Comparring Tim Treadwell to Steve Irwin is very unfair to Irwin. Enough said.
-
Steve Irwin had humor, charm, and despite his apparent insanity, expertise and professionalism to boot.
Treadwill had none of those things, except for the insanity. An idiot to the last. Yes, too bad about the girl.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Comparing Tim Treadwell to Steve Irwin is very unfair to Irwin. Enough said.
Ain't that the truth. Steve Irwin was an over the top entertainer who likely did more for wildlife and conservation than greenpeace and the sierra club combined. He knew the character he created was what it was, he did it on purpose, he had a reason. Treadwell on the other hand was truly out of his mind, and from what I've read, often under the influence of hard core drugs.
I never watched Steve Irwin's show like some people watch shows like his, and like some so called fans watch racing, just waiting for the crash and marveling at how bad it was.
From what I've read, it seems more and more like a freak accident. They say he didn't do anything to the stingray, it just spooked and stabbed him. Even worse, it's possible that he made it fatal by pulling the barb out. In place, it might have kept him from bleeding out. If his friend and manager is telling the truth, it was keeping the wound mostly sealed, and when he pulled it out, he opened the wound and made it even worse, and his blood pressure went to zero instantly. He probably didn't realize how bad he was hurt.
-
it truly was a freak accident and underscores the inherent danger one faces when ever we enter the wild. if a man like irwin could be killed..... from what I understand it was a fairly large bullnose stingray. depending on the size of the ray the barbs on that animal can be up to 12" in length. a simple cut from the barb delivers toxins as well as bacteria. it's a pretty nasty wound and they often produce amputations and occassionally death. a direct puncture anywhere to chest is likely to be fatal and painfully so.
-
"A man who won't die for something is not fit to live."- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Just something for you pessimist to ponder
-
Originally posted by cav58d
"A man who won't die for something is not fit to live."- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Just something for you pessimist to ponder
pfft that was easy for him to say.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
"A man who won't die for something is not fit to live."- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Just something for you pessimist to ponder
Sorry, but I'll have to draw a distinction here. If grizzly boy died while trying to stop a rifle bullet from striking one of his beloved bears, he would have 'died for something'. If he'd died trying to save a drowning bear, he would have 'died for something'.
As it stands, this idiot brought his hapless girlfriend into the woods, set up camp near a stream where the bears regularly fed, and, to boot, during a time when they struggle to put on their extra winter weight. To make matters worse, the food was in short supply, making the situation that much more dangerous. If he were an expert of any sort, he would have known the risks, and had he chosen to undertake them anyway, would have never put somebody else in jeopardy.
He died trying to impress his girlfriend, and, sadly, took her with him. And in regards to all his 'work' prior to his demise, it's questionable that he did any good at all. In fact, his constant presence may have even conditioned these wild animals in a way that promoted dangerous encounters with other humans--namely those that came there to kill them, not give them pet names.
-
People confuse letting animals live, with letting animals live with us. Seems that grizzly dude thought he could be accepted by them. Even domesticated animals freak out. Maybe he should have chosen something like wild hare or something to befriend.
-
It's rather annoying how many people are commenting on both situations when they really know nothing about either.
Similarly, both entertainers died from a Rogue Animal. There is no reason why the stingray attacked Steve Irwin. There is no reason why that grizzly bear attacked Treadwell. While both people could have been labeled as kooks, they both lived good lives showing people what else those predators can be.
The distinction is that neither were killed by animals that were in the norm. Irwin was attacked by a stingray that had no reason or purpose in attacking him. Treadwell was attacked by an outcast grizzly bear that had no reason or purpose in attacking him. However, in both cases, what the animal did was unexpected and different.
-
Originally posted by Toad
He's bear scat now; too bad about the girl.
:aok
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Maybe he should have chosen something like wild hare or something to befriend.
Bad idea... I saw a few documentaries where several were actually killed by hares or rabbits.
(http://www.1000misspenthours.com/posters/postersn-z/nightofthelepus.jpg) (http://www.horrormovies.com/images/Lepus.jpg)
and of course,
(http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail177.jpg)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's rather annoying how many people are commenting on both situations when they really know nothing about either.
Similarly, both entertainers died from a Rogue Animal. There is no reason why the stingray attacked Steve Irwin. There is no reason why that grizzly bear attacked Treadwell. While both people could have been labeled as kooks, they both lived good lives showing people what else those predators can be.
The distinction is that neither were killed by animals that were in the norm. Irwin was attacked by a stingray that had no reason or purpose in attacking him. Treadwell was attacked by an outcast grizzly bear that had no reason or purpose in attacking him. However, in both cases, what the animal did was unexpected and different.
You see..thats why they are called animals. It doesnt take a qualified wildlife scientist to tell me bears, and many other wild animals are dangerous to humans...largely because of that unpredictability. The guy play with bears...and his luck ran out.
-
These posters are trying to make a distinction between Irwin and Treadwell when there is none. While both might have been thought of as crazy to some people, they had interesting mannerisms that played well into the animals they were around.
But, as most people here have made evident as they have not seen the movie, Treadwell was attacked by a bear that was not from his region, nor from any region nearby. He was literally attacked by a "Crazy" bear if we can attach human mannerisms to animals. There was no reason for that bear to be near Treadwell, no reason for the bear to be in that region, no reason for the bear to attack him...
It was more of a freak accident that could have happened to anyone of us then something that was inevitable.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
IThere is no reason why the stingray attacked Steve Irwin. There is no reason why that grizzly bear attacked Treadwell.
From what I heard Irwin and his camera man had the ray boxed in. It reacted in a natural way - not necessarily predictable but definitely within its range of behaviours especially when its stressed. It was Irwin's bad luck to cozy up to a ray that didn't react as he expected. Given the stunts he regularly pulled for his show it shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone that he stood a good chance of getting killed by a wild animal of some sort eventually.
Treadwell? The man was an idiot. His behaviour was utterly and completely irrational. Although he managed to get away with living in his fantasy world with his big loveable teddy-bears for awhile but it couldn't last forever. Bears are omnivores. If food is plentiful and the competition for the available food isn't extreme then yeah, you're more than likely going to survive an encounter with a grizzly as long as you stay calm and it's not of a mind to kill you for any number of other reasons (surprising a bear falls under "any number of other reasons", as does the bad luck of running into a big bear in a bad mood). If food gets scarce or the competition gets extreme and you're in the vicinity, well then, you're on the menu.
Trying to convince people that predators have a warm, soft cuddly side is assinine and dangerous - dangerous for the animal and for any people it is unlucky enough to encounter later. Treadwell was an idiot living in a fantasy world, but that wasn't his crime. His crime was talking someone else into it and getting them killed.
Irwin made a habit of pushing his luck with dangerous critters and it caught up to him. A little less arrogance on his part in the face of potentially lethal critters would likely have seen him still alive - oh well.
asw
-
From my vast experience watching 'Grizzly man', it seemed to me Treadwell was seriously disturbed. Not for the walking around in the presence of bears, but for the camera takes of a man screaming at the world, and then shake that emotion off and immediately give a sedate description of the situation. He seemed to have no sense of humor, and capable of wild swings of emotion.
Irwin stayed consistant in his entusiasm for the natural world.
Treadwell stayed beyond the time when he normally left for the winter, beyond the time when the bears he knew were down for the winter.
He did something his experience told him not to do, and he payed for it.
Irwin did something that thousands of snorklers do. Nothing out of the ordinary. Akin to crossing the street and being hit by a bus: A freak accident. Had the spine hit him a few inched off, a short hospital stay.
-
Yeah, but bringing up Grizzly Man is useful exactly for that. Plenty of people want to say Steve Irwin was killed because of his insanity around wild animals. You know, "I called it, saw that crazy fool getting his ribs cracked by a huge female croc, and I knew his insanity would cost him his life". That's also why the story has "Traction" in the news industry.
The guy wasn't insane. Treadwell was insane (or, some would say, stupid). He got so wrapped up with his bears that, at the end, with an invalid air ticket home, he couldn't deal with what he called "the human world", and rather than sort out his trip, he went back; all his "Friends" had hibernated, and he was left with the other desperate outcasts.
It makes a great story -- a man whose obsessive insanity drives him from civilization and to his ruin; it's also pretty much the plot line of every Werner Herzog film ever made. But this one is the best.
-
A bear attack shouldn't have been unexpected. Nor are they outside the pale of human experience. Grizzlies attack people every year. And not all of those attacks are carried out by "rogue" animals or animals that are old and incapable of finding other food.
The wild is not as it has been portrayed by Disney.
If you want a no-nonsense, non-starry-eyed look at what happened to Treadwell, take the time to read the information at this site:
http://www.yellowstone-bearman.com/Tim_Treadwell.html
-
When I first heard about Treadwell, I immediately thought "well of COURSE he got eaten... Duh!". When I heard about Irwin's death, I thought "Damn I guess he got too close." There is a huge difference.
If Irwin had gotten himself eaten by a croc while messing around in a croc pen in his spare time, then yea I'd say the situations were pretty similiar. But comparing a guy who made it his life's calling hanging out with one of the world's most successful and aggressive predators, and a guy who got killed swimming around one of the world's most passive critters that just happens to be rather well armed for self defense, does not make any kind of common sense.
It's sort of like comparing the death of an airshow performer with the death of a private pilot who biffs into a hill trying to fly under a bridge to impress his girlfriend. One guy is taking a methodical approach to a dangerous business in order to perform acts requiring a high degree of skill, and the other guy is just being a tard. Guess what... Swimming near a stingray, even as close as Irwin had to have been to get stabbed, is nowhere near as stupidly dangerous as hanging out with grizzly bears on a routine basis.
You can find thousands of divers who have had wonderful experiences up close and personal with stingrays, but I challenge you to find ONE alaskan outdoorsman who has anything good to say about going unarmed close enough to a grizzly for it to eat you and your girlfriend.
I'm with Yeager on this one... Comparing these two people is an insult to Irwin.
-
I think the bears just thought the guy was "special" and felt pity for him. Then one day, one realized he was just an idiot who tried to pet and become 1 with 1000lb predators and it ate him.
Steve on the other hand knew those 1 ton crocs were dangerous and although he took risk he didn't really try to gain thier "acceptance". He got the heck outta dodge when 1 was coming, not try to talk to it.
-
Irwin went for the flash of dangerous animals. It cost him his life. Anyone remember what the name of the film he was making?
I know parents who would not let their kids watch him because he was an idiot. It doesn't matter if it's for the camera or because of insanity... it doesn't really matter. Both were promoting irrational behavior with dangerous animals. I feel about as much pity for him as I'd feel for a lion tamer that gets attacked. Any time someone tries to present themselves as above the rules of nature, nature has a nasty way of proving them wrong.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's rather annoying how many people are commenting on both situations when they really know nothing about either.
Nothing about them, not their tactics, nor their knowhow, nor their approaches to their work, nor their effects on the animals, nor their personalities, were the same. So with all due respect, if you If you think they had more in common than not, I think it's you that doesn't know much about either.
The fact that they died from injuries inflicted by wild animals does nothing to level the playing field. Comparing Irwin to Treadwell is like comparing a trained chemist to an idiot who sticks a quarter stick into his mouth, lights the fuze and sees how long he can wait before spitting it out.
-
You don't work with any "trained chemists", do you?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
...Any time someone tries to present themselves as above the rules of nature, nature has a nasty way of proving them wrong.
According to your logic, you should only travel on foot.
-
"Panda Watch. The mood is tense; I have been on some serious, serious reports but nothing quite like this. I uh... Ching... King is inside right now. I tried to get an interview with him, but they said no, you can't do that he's a live bear, he will literally rip your face off. "
Brian Fantana
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You don't work with any "trained chemists", do you?
It was an analogy.
Regardless, the point is valid. As crazy as Irwin seemed to be, his level of training and conditioning and control over the situations in which he placed himself were that much more advanced than that of Treadwell.
On a seperate note, Treadwell seemed to be more self-serving and self-indulgent than he was interested in the bears. His flights of emotion compeltely put him out of the realm of professionalism.
-
I know parents who would not let their kids watch him (Irwin) because he was an idiot.
These posters are trying to make a distinction between Irwin and Treadwell when there is none.
====
two real gems here fellas. Read em and weep :rolleyes:
-
Irwin was a one trick pony. "Watch as I provoke this daaaaaaaaaaingerisss animal into a defensive fight-or-flight response!" That's how he made his money and that's how he died. In a way Treadwell was better. He may have been an idiot but he wasn't stupid enough to intentionally provoke violent behavior. My apologies to fanbois of either example of natural selection.
-
hate to burst your troll-bubble, Funked, but only Treadwell was an example of natural selection. Irwin was killed after he reproduced and secured a comfortable existence (=enhanced reproduction opportunity) for his children.
-
Irwin provoked and left them provoked.
Treadwell seemed to think that he could either coexist in the wild without ramifications or domesticate to a point.
Either is idiotic. Park bears that have to mingle and interact with humans are some of the most dangerous of them all due to their lack of fear of human beings.
To say that the grizzly did something unexpected or unnatural is just plain hooey.
Grizzlies are predators. Big , powerfull predators at that.
If you play with snakes, gators or whatever long enough you are going to get bit eventualy. It`s the law of averages.
To think that you are going to continualy invade grizzly turf and not end up as the blue plate special is insane. They are not big , misunderstood , cuddly play toys.
-
They both played with fire. It was only a matter of time til they got burned
-
Originally posted by deSelys
According to your logic, you should only travel on foot.
No. According to my logic, insisting that driving on ice isn't dangerous will drastically increase your chances of nature resetting things.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
It was an analogy.
Duh?Regardless, the point is valid. As crazy as Irwin seemed to be, his level of training and conditioning and control over the situations in which he placed himself were that much more advanced than that of Treadwell.
This is where your analogy will come back to bite you in the butt.
There is no "level of training or conditioning" here. A chemist that believes he knows enough to mix dangerous chemicals without wories is just as dangerous as someone that is doing the same thing without understanding the risks. There is no ammount of "control" that prevents these things.
On a seperate note, Treadwell seemed to be more self-serving and self-indulgent than he was interested in the bears. His flights of emotion compeltely put him out of the realm of professionalism.
The were both self serving. You're quibling over degree.
-
Treadwell was visibly insane on his last trip into the grizzley maze and directly brought about his own grizzley death (no pun intended) through his complete ignorance and lack of understanding of the natural world (grizzley bears are not sweet little people wrapped in fur blankets, you do not coo and caw at these bears like they are children to be manipulated). Finally, Treadwell contributed directly to the death of an innocent yet tragically ignorant woman.
Again, there is no comparrison between the Irwin and Treadwell. Zero, zilch...nada. Irwin truly was inspired to educate and entertain and fought to protect and preserve all wildlife. Treadwell was a nutjob.
-
Wasn't the bear guy an addict before he had a revelation?
-
could it be??? are you fellows going to start a flame war over these two sad events?? good
-
unlike the thread starter, I dont recommend watching this movie in light of Irwin getting stabbed in the heart by a largely harmless innocuous ray (only 3 deaths in Australia by Ray in over 100 years). To do so would be genuinely disingenuous.
On the contrary, I recommend watching Grizzley Man because it is simply a mind freak to watch Treadwell go insane. Also, if your a musician there is a wonderful segment in the extra features part of the DVD about the musicians and recording of the soundtrack. The music was tastefully done.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
No. According to my logic, insisting that driving on ice isn't dangerous will drastically increase your chances of nature resetting things.
Going at 50 mph, even on a dry road, isn't natural for the man.
And flying? Do you qualify the Wright Brothers as suicidals?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The were both self serving. You're quibling over degree.
I'm also apparently quibling over the degree to which these guys calculated their risks when engaging in their activities of choice. After a bit of research, I'd have to conclude that Irwin, having spent his whole life around reptiles, was in his element around the animals. IE, he felt at home near them, and had reason to. Yes, there was risk, but with nearly 4 decades in close proximity with a variety of dangerous organisms, it is probably safe to say that he was aware of those risks to the point of professional certainty. Not 100 percent, but close enough.
Treadwell, although having spent a whole bunch of time with the bears (no variety, just one species), never really made it past the point of giving them human names and whispering sweet nothings into their ears while prancing around the forest on what appears to have been an extended acid trip.
Yes, both served their own interests, both did things that I would not want my children to do. One was killed by the very animals he supposedly specialized in, where as the other really was a victim of a freakishly rare attack--not killed by a Crocadile, which would have been his equivalent.
Does this make them inherently different? I think so. I admit, however, that my judgment is steered not just by their backgrounds, but also by the fact that I found one to be likeable, and the other, nothing but an acidic, overzealous moron.
-
I caught Treadwells documentary on the discovery channel a while back while he was on one of his "rants". As many have already said he was nuts. While both cases are tragic (irregardless of stupidity etc.,) it was going to happen sooner or later.
As I said on the FDB board, they both lived on borrowed time doing what they did.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Going at 50 mph, even on a dry road, isn't natural for the man.
And flying? Do you qualify the Wright Brothers as suicidals?
Ah... you're stretching to make absolutely no point.
Going into the woods: No problem
Going up to a grizzly: Problem
Snorkling: No problem
Snorkling over a stingray: problem
Driving: No problem
Driving on ice: problem
Both of these guys did very stupid things with dangerous animals. Despite yeager's assertion that there is a big difference, the point is missed. One was a likeable sort that made incredibly stupid things look routine. That is every bit as bad as a loon doing the same things. Nature wins again.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's rather annoying how many people are commenting on both situations when they really know nothing about either.
Hey everybody! laser was there!!
-
Treadwell, being an idealistic zealot, raised on modern chuckleheaded environmentalism, ignored, but ultimately ran squarely into, the basic law of the wild...eat or be eaten.
It serves no good purpose to clothe the wild in some fairy dust notions of mystic nobility. The wild is the wild...period. You and I are just walking containers of protein.
I love the natural world...have spent a lot of time alone in it...and want to see it preserved in as pristine a condition as possible......but I have no illusions about it.
When one is abroad in the wild, all actions should err on the side of caution.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Ah... you're stretching to make absolutely no point.
Going into the woods: No problem
Going up to a grizzly: Problem
Snorkling: No problem
Snorkling over a stingray: problem
Driving: No problem
Driving on ice: problem
Both of these guys did very stupid things with dangerous animals. Despite yeager's assertion that there is a big difference, the point is missed. One was a likeable sort that made incredibly stupid things look routine. That is every bit as bad as a loon doing the same things. Nature wins again.
Of course you are basically right, but there are certainly degrees of risk. Snorkling near stingrays would be about a 2 while living with grizzlies would be about a 50... on a scale of 0 being grandma's garden and 50 being trying to retrieve food from a pitbull's mouth.
-
yes, snorkling with rays is highly deadly. So deadly in fact that three people in the past 100 years have died snorkling in Australia as a result of being struck by rays.
There simply is no comparrison between these two men.
-
How many people have been killed by grizzlies in the last 100 years?
They both showed a lack of respect for exactly what these animals were and how they'd react to them. It killed both of them. That is about as much comonality as you need.
You're only quibbling over degrees of sanity.
-
I thought I was the one that was quibling--what gives?
-
How many people have been killed by grizzlies in the last 100 years?
====
Wikipedia shows that in North America alone, between the year 2000 and 2006, 19 people were killed by brown/black bears. The sight doesnt seem to differentiate between Brown and Grizzly. So simple bear data will have to do in this example.
In Glacier National Park between 1967 and 1998, 10 people were killed by Grizzly bears.
If after reading this data you conclude that snorkling in ray country is equivalent or even comparable to camping in bear country then there just is no more meat on this bone to chew. No pun intended towards Tim Treadwell
Speaking of Tim, I found a fascinating article about the attack that killed he and his lady
http://www.yellowstone-bearman.com/Tim_Treadwell.html
:cry
-
Lesson #1 of the bush. Giving wild animals snookie-pookie names wont stop them from eating you.
I talked to bears like that once, bit they were stuffed, and I was six years old...
-
LOL Yeager. Irwin was just "snorkeling in ray country". Have you seen his videos? Find a dangerous animal, roll the camera, antagonize animal until it attacks.
-
"Gotta sneak up on 'em and ram your thumb right up their butthole!"
-
Then 10 would be it yeager. Black/brown aren't grizzlies.
So... 10 deaths where people are greatly more prevelant (more people on land than the sea... yes?) vs 4.
Yeppers... real statistical difference there.
Why... singrays are only 1/3 as deadly as grizzly bears. That makes them FUN!
Venomous barbed tail. Say that to yourself really slow. "They hardly ever use it" isn't much of an excuse.
-
Uhmmm.............. brown bears are grizzly bears
so, what your basically saying now is that a sting ray has the same lethality as a grizzly bear?
o.....k
-
The major difference between Steve Irwin and Tim Treadwell was that Irwin was loved and adored by millions of people. Well wishers are leaving flowers upon flowers at his park. His family has been offered a State Funeral.
Timothy Treadwell was largely unheard of until he died. People only sat through the whole video to see if they showed anything "good." Or to do a nice case study of someone completely mad. And not crazy because of his infatuation with bears - just completely looney with or without them.
I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't have been expecting Irwin's death, or that he wasn't taking risks. I do think some people, including myself, are a bit ruffled that someone would compare him to Timothy Treadwell. Anyone who has watched Grizzly Man, read that link a few posted, and also watched a fair amount of Croc Hunter episodes knows that's unjust.
I also think that many of us were figuring he'd get eaten by a crocodile or die from a snake bite. If you asked me a week ago how I thought he might die I sure as heck wouldn't have said he'd get pierced through the heart by a sting ray.
It's like a modern day story of Achilles' Heel.
Steve Irwin
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Then 10 would be it yeager. Black/brown aren't grizzlies.
So... 10 deaths where people are greatly more prevelant (more people on land than the sea... yes?) vs 4.
The chances of running into a Sting Ray by accident, taking into account the number of people in the ocean at given moment, the size of the habitat and the fact that there are no established boundaries delineating this habitat, are most likely greater than the chances of running into a bear, whose area is generally smaller, more localized and more predictable.
Furthermore, people are usually more aware of their chances of meeting a bear, as there are signs posted, as well as the presence of dense forest. The fact that there are more people on land is not relevant. They have to be in specific regions of the land, and since most Westerners spend most of their time in Urban/Suburban areas, the numbers are actually far lower, making the incidence of deadly bear attacks that much more significant.
Sting Rays, I'm thinking, are more likely to catch somebody by surprise--and I mean real surprise, as the person will have had no idea as to the risk of running into one. You also cannot discount the fact that many, perhaps most close encounters with Sting Rays go unnoticed. They will remain hiddenin the darkness, making no noise, and producing no outward signs to denote their presence. Not so for bears, who stomp around, rustling leaves and branches before they finally emerge, big as life, to scare the bejeezus out of you. Rays, like most fish, are just that much more discreet.
This very summer I almost brushed up against a passing Manta Ray while swimming just a few yards off shore at a private beach in Southern Delaware. Scared the hell out of me... No matter, I named him fluffy and proceeded to visit him every day with a video camera in hand.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.