Posted on 06/13/2004 5:04:09 PM PDT by Stoat
CROCODILE hunter Steve Irwin is reportedly under Federal Government investigation for a possible criminal breach of wildlife laws after allegedly clowning with whales and penguins while filming in Antarctica.
The Sydney Morning Herald said the Australian Antarctic Division has demanded an urgent copy of a documentary, due to be screened on Friday in the US, based on descriptions of its contents.
The blurb for the hour-long Ice Breaker program on the Animal Planet channel says Irwin "slides down hillsides with penguins; almost rubs noses with the notoriously dangerous leopard seal; and spends time in the inspirational company of two friendly humpback whales."
Interacting with Antarctic wildlife is forbidden and attracts fines up of to $1 million and two years' jail.
Parliamentary environment secretary Sharman Stone confirmed Irwin's company was granted approval to film whales.
But Ms Stone said the permit would not have allowed Irwin to jump in and pat the animals
Damned greenie/peta/spca/elf/alf idiot alert!!
(checking)
I checked and I absolutely don't care.
I'm about as far from a Greenie or Peta-twit as you might imagine and I don't particularly care so much if Steve Irwin kisses a leopard seal. I think that the point here, however, is that here is a man who, rightly or wrongly, has very recently been the focal point of hysterical international criticism and condemnation.
If you were in that sort of position, wouldn't you take particular care not to run afoul of the law, regardless of whether you think the law is justified or not?
Wouldn't such an experience suggest to you that you are under a microscope and that there are people who are looking for a reason to cause you harm?
"Krikey! I'm a bloomin' idiot, I am!"
Personally, I think he's a verified nut! He will probably win the Darwin Award one day soon.
We don't need jack-boots laws to "protect" these people from themselves - let nature take care of itself.
The criticism lately was for having his child with him.... if you are still all het up over that, then let that be your issue, I don't share it. This is just the typical up close experience he does for his show, and did not involve his child. Big "so what" as far as I am concerned, and probably good TV.
I thoroughly enjoy his documentaries. It is nice to have shows that I don't have to prescreen for my children to watch.
"Interacting with Antarctic wildlife is forbidden?" WTF?!?
That in itself doesn't surprise me, and is a necessity based on how stupid people can be. If there wasn't a law forbidding people from interacting or getting too close to our Orca here in Puget Sound, it wouldn't surprise me that you'd have a flotilla of tourists chasing them all the time, trying to touch them, or worse, holding fish out like free willie. The tourists would either run them off, injure them, or make them into a menace even bigger than park bears.
Irwin is a self-described conservative who always goes into the bush with a rifle. His interactions with the animals are part of his entertainment routine. I don't see how any conservative could fail to see an effort by the government of AUSTRALIA to stop him from PATTING a whale in ANTARTICA as anything other than the gov'mint run amuk.
Sometimes I wonder *LOL* I think he'll get seriously injured one day but oh well.
Forbidden by who? The World Wildlife Federation?
The United Nations? The Antarctica Pariament?
The Southern Ocean Whale Association?
Not that I doubt that there is some sort of treaty association regulating whaling or regulating the exploitation of Antarctic resources, but in the words of ALGORE, "Where is the controlling legal authority?"
I'm not "het up" over anything at all, and my only "issue" in posting this news item was to point out, as I've already stated, (see post 4) that here is a man who seems to have a particularly steep learning curve in a matter that's rather basic. When you've just spent months being hysterically condemned throughout the international press, don't you think that most people would, at least for a little while, take particular care not to run afoul of the law in an extremely public way?
I'm wondering why this concept seems so complicated to some here.
Isn't filming a documentary different though? I think you have to get a permit and/or license to do that.
"He will probably win the Darwin Award one day soon."
And I'm sure he will submit the winning entry from the Galopagos Islands.
How can there be a government that represents Antarticia if there are no human residents. Do the freaking penguins vote.
If the governemnt of Australia is the one in question, when in Sam Hill did they conquer Antartica?
I don't want to make too much a point of this, but it seems to me that given the numbers of people with easy access to Puget Sound, as compared to the number of people with easy access to the ice-bound coasts of Antarctica, it might be considerably easier to build a case for regulation of human behavior in the Puget Sound.
Somehow, I doubt if there are more than just one or two cases per decade of folks going into Antarctic waters or sliding down snowbanks with Penguins. In other words, the potential for harm is orders of magnitude lower in a remote area such as the Antarctic coast.
Months being hysterically condemned? - The story about him and the child was a flash in the pan, reported for a day or two and forgotten. Meanwhile, he's still doing his show every week. What you saw in the footage with the baby is the way he lives, it's who he is, only most of the time, presumably, without the baby.
This story also is probably a flash in the pan, a permit he didn't get and will get, or he'll negotiate a fine and it'll be over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.