The original croc hunter and humanitarian Mr Robert Irwin!



Letters
January 24, 2007

A READER TAKES ISSUE WITH OUR WRITER’S SHARKMAN STORY

Vincent, sorry, your take [“The Fox and the Shark,” issue 3] on Treadwell and Irwin — that “Irwin’s risky and unorthodox methods were backed by years of experience” that Treadwell didn’t have...what? Where did you come up with that? And inferring Treadwell’s work had nothing to do with wanting “people to see the necessity of these misunderstood animals’ survival”...please!

-Rebecca Dmytryk

Wildlife

Malibu



OUR SHARKMAN STORY WRITER RESPONDS

Rebecca,

I appreciate your comment.

To answer your first line of criticism, I think that if you researched the lives of both Steve Irwin and Tim Treadwell you would see that Irwin’s experience working with dangerous wild animals is more extensive and more legitimate than Treadwell’s. Irwin grew up helping his parents operate a zoo. Irwin’s hands-on study of such animals began in his formative years, and obviously continued until his death. Treadwell’s interest in bears and wildlife didn’t really take off until well into his adult years. And despite Treadwell’s enthusiam for bears—which, I must note, seems fueled as much by post-alcoholic mania as by an interest in wildlife—his methods of studying these animals were widely discredited by wildlife experts. Treadwell did spend years with the bears in Alaska. And he also talked to schoolchildren about the importance of saving them from poachers. But I don’t think there’s any way to deny that Treadwell’s methods of interacting with and studying grizzlies was adolescent at best. For evidence to back my claim, see Warner Herzog’s Grizzly Man; or, if you don’t have time, read the following entry from Wikipedia:

“Treadwell’s methods were generally thought unsound by bear experts and public alike....Many wildlife experts objected to his methods, believing that his attitude toward the bears was too cavalier, that he blatantly ignored well-known dangers of working with grizzlies, and that he dangerously anthropomorphized them. Experts also believe that he inadvertently endangered the animals by habituating them to humans, thus increasing the likelihood of dangerous encounters in the future. His death by bear attack is seen by some as a natural result of his methods.”

As for your second line of criticism, I don’t see how my text infers that “Treadwell’s work had nothing to do with wanting ‘people to see the necessity of these misunderstood animals’ survival,’” as you claim.

-Vincent Howard



WHY ALL THE HIDIN’?

Great article [“If at First They Don’t Succeed,” issue 3], Angela! I think all your comments and reasons why the meeting should be open to the public are very valid. My comment has to do with the reason given for being closed to the public.

“There were discussions going on that they considered confidential,” Hudson told the TFP’s Herman Wang. “They’re revealing things about the way they function, what their future plans are, where the problems are – typical things that any business isn’t going to want out for public consumption.”

Why would any homeless service provider need to worry about letting people know what their strategy is for helping the homeless? Are they worried that their turf of helping the homeless might be done better by someone else? My thought is there is generally only a few reasons that they would want to keep the public out, and that probably has to do with something green.

-Daniel Buck