The only time I ever saw him 'blink' was when he faced an aggressive cobra. It repeatedly attacked the camera, and was reared up about three feet off the ground. Irwin gamely tried to grab its tail a few times but the cobra snapped around pretty fast.
Irwin finally admitted defeat... "I think we'll let this one go..." and this freaky snake went off into the bush, its head still about three feet off the ground. WOULD NOT want to stumble across that in the bush...

My absolute favorite clip of Steve Irwin:
He's out in the Australian Outback and he starts showing the camera a non-venomous snake when he gets bit. He carries on for a bit, then suddenly looks into the camera and yells "Croiky!" and bolts over to his truck. He digs out a book from the glove box, thumbs through it rapidly, and with a sigh of relief says "Yep, non-venomous. For a second there, I thought I was holding a (snake name) and we're about 200 miles from the nearest hospital!"

Treadwell yes... but Irwin doesn't seem the same... he respected and was cautious and it was a freak deal that got him. Treadwell and this woman had/have it coming to them.

Timothy Treadwell and Steve Irwin.

Yeah...

This is a prime example of complete stupidity permeating the defenses of internet distribution. This guy will die off before he gets a fraction of the notoriety of Steve Irwin.
You don't pick snakes up by their tails.
You can eat snake just fine provided you don't consume the venom glands.

"It's all fun and games until a barb pierces your heart." - Steve Irwin

>> ^A10anis:

I'm afraid I cannot see any correlation between driving a car, and climbing into a cage with a lion! A car is an inanimate object. It is not susceptible to whims, or moods, and has not existed for millennia with the sole purpose of tearing living animals apart to feed it's family. Of course they both have risks - putting on your socks has risks. But there are rational risks, and bloody stupid risks. Your example, which compares one as equatable to the other is, frankly, a non-sequitur. As for
Steve Irwin; His death, as any, was tragic. But here was an "expert" who, despite his knowledge, died at the hands of a wild animal. I think that proves my point, there are NO experts.


Although the car is inanimate, it is susceptible to whims and moods -- certainly the whims and moods of other drivers (and yourself), but arguably also the occasional "quirk" in the machinery or state of some parts that can exhibit itself almost like a living thing. Perhaps it was a poor example or non-sequitur (RIP Mitch Heberg), but it makes sense to me anyway.

Maybe there are no "experts" with these wild animals (-- maybe there are no expert drivers?) but the difference between a rational risk and a bloody stupid risk is subjective, and I think that the people that work with these animals for a living (or as their passion) are personally quite comfortable with what they are doing, and believe that the risks they are taking are rational. Even if they know/believe that what they are doing has more risk of injury/death than other jobs/hobbies/activities, they feel that it is worth doing.

We don't have to agree with them. I find things like smoking or bungee jumping to be bloody stupid risks (or more accurately activities with an extremely poor cost-benefit analysis), but to people that do and love those things, my personal difference of opinion with them is of no concern (nor should it be). Life's a messy thing; no matter how much padding or how many safety nets we surround ourselves with our luck will run out eventually. I think that for the dude in this video (and for Steve Irwin), the chance to live their lives loving what they do is worth the risk of dying from it.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

>> ^A10anis:
I have absolutely no time for these idiots. And it matters not how many years experience they have. It is a wild beast, UN-trainable, Treating a Lion, Tiger, Bear etc. as if you could possibly anticipate its reactions is a recipe for disaster, ask Zeigfried and Roy.

I am tempted to mostly agree with you, but to play devil's advocate:
You might say the same thing about a car. You might be an excellent driver: years of experience, can easily and calmly avoid an accident in virtually all scenarios, never drive distracted or without an appropriate amount of focus, etc. In spite of that, once in a while your car may have some problem at exactly the wrong moment -- maybe you blow a tire just before some ice on a curve, or while trying to merge in front of a semi or something. Or maybe some drunk and/or lunatic does something that even perfect defensive driving can't prepare you for.
Driving a car can put you into situations that are impossible to anticipate on control -- recipes for disaster. Yet many of us still get behind the wheel every day. We accept that there is a small (although probably greater than we readily admit) chance of disaster, and figure that the convenience and functionality of driving/riding in a vehicle is worth the risk.
For some people, working with these animals must seem a bit like that. Steve Irwin worked with very dangerous animals all the time. He took risks that seemed like insanity to those of us that don't have the same motivations and drive that he did. And he got burned in a billion-to-one freak accident with an animal that is far less dangerous than many he worked with. My guess is that although he died as a result, if you asked his ghost what he thought about that he would likely reply "no regrets".

I'm afraid I cannot see any correlation between driving a car, and climbing into a cage with a lion! A car is an inanimate object. It is not susceptible to whims, or moods, and has not existed for millennia with the sole purpose of tearing living animals apart to feed it's family. Of course they both have risks - putting on your socks has risks. But there are rational risks, and bloody stupid risks. Your example, which compares one as equatable to the other is, frankly, a non-sequitur. As for
Steve Irwin; His death, as any, was tragic. But here was an "expert" who, despite his knowledge, died at the hands of a wild animal. I think that proves my point, there are NO experts.

>> ^A10anis:

I have absolutely no time for these idiots. And it matters not how many years experience they have. It is a wild beast, UN-trainable, Treating a Lion, Tiger, Bear etc. as if you could possibly anticipate its reactions is a recipe for disaster, ask Zeigfried and Roy.


I am tempted to mostly agree with you, but to play devil's advocate:

You might say the same thing about a car. You might be an excellent driver: years of experience, can easily and calmly avoid an accident in virtually all scenarios, never drive distracted or without an appropriate amount of focus, etc. In spite of that, once in a while your car may have some problem at exactly the wrong moment -- maybe you blow a tire just before some ice on a curve, or while trying to merge in front of a semi or something. Or maybe some drunk and/or lunatic does something that even perfect defensive driving can't prepare you for.

Driving a car can put you into situations that are impossible to anticipate on control -- recipes for disaster. Yet many of us still get behind the wheel every day. We accept that there is a small (although probably greater than we readily admit) chance of disaster, and figure that the convenience and functionality of driving/riding in a vehicle is worth the risk.

For some people, working with these animals must seem a bit like that. Steve Irwin worked with very dangerous animals all the time. He took risks that seemed like insanity to those of us that don't have the same motivations and drive that he did. And he got burned in a billion-to-one freak accident with an animal that is far less dangerous than many he worked with. My guess is that although he died as a result, if you asked his ghost what he thought about that he would likely reply "no regrets".

>> ^cracanata:

I found the use of "fail" word discouraging my hopes for humanity. I agree with the use of it when something is amusing, but when terrible things like this happen is just wrong and dehumanizing.


It's still a fail...

To me it looked like the wingsuit didn't give him the lift he was expecting and he pulled the chute too late to make much of a difference. I understand 900 feet is not a lot of room for error but still, there was time for a seasoned veteran (anyone wingsuiting from a bridge should have some logged hours flying the thing in a less dangerous environment, say 12,000 feet higher) to pull out of the stunt and admit defeat, sparing himself the injuries.

I lump this 'tradgedy' in with things like the death of Kurt Kobain, Bon Scott or Steve Irwin. Choosing to do something risky where it is foreseeable that you could die or be seriously damaged is exercising poor choices, not tragic.

But of course it's all in the eye of the beholder. I just tend to have a low opinion of things like this being talked up as tragic because, as packo noted, there are plenty of real tradgedies where the victims have absolutely no choice in their situation and still suffer horribly.

>> ^maatc:

Crikey! In the preview image he looks like Steve Irwin!


Definitely an Irwin Syndrome baby.

Crikey! In the preview image he looks like Steve Irwin!

Taking a gander at his filmography, Cronenberg has made a career out of making very cold-looking films. I'm not sure if it's the cinematography or if it's something else entirely like his storytelling style.

Far as DPs go, he had Mark Irwin for The Brood, Scanners, Videodrome, Dead Zone, and The Fly which are the main five "chilly" films I'm talking about. He then had Peter Suschitzky for all the rest, which weren't exactly warm looking either. Cronenberg doesn't have a big photography background like Kubrick so...I dunno. He must have a very clear vision from the git-go.

Well, not really, as he doesn't work with stingrays. But I'm sure you know that, and are merely trying to imply that he'll end up getting mauled eventually. That's certainly possible. But it's important to note that Richardson hand-raises practically every lion (and hyena) in the enclosure he works for (which is a wildlife reserve) and while still large, dangerous animals, he has a unique, very special bond with them, and they are to a slight degree tame. If you've seen this video before, it serves as another example of the rare bond I speak of.

Yet the point stands, they could kill him at any moment. However Richardson maintains, despite that fact, that he would do it all again in an instant, no regrets. He feels the work he does to protect these animals is worth the price he could ultimately pay. And I'm sure Irwin felt the same way about his career, bless him.

Your comment was harmless, but elsewhere on the internet where ever these videos of Richardson are posted there are always people likening him to Timothy Treadwell and jumping to the same conclusions over and over again without knowing very much about the broader context of the work he does. Personally, I admire him and all those who risk life and limb for something they believe in and care for. (Which reminds me, I've to buy some poppies)

Anyway, that's my 10 cents.
>> ^thyazide:

Stingrays have a new target IMO.

[redacted]