Steve didn't jump on crocs for fun. He developed a way to capture problem crocs to relocate them before they were shot by locals. His whole reason was to conserve the animals. I'm surprised at Sir David for not realizing that.
That’s true but he’s referring to SI growing up doing this. He clearly did do it for fun to but David clearly realised and recognised his view point and credited him as being helpful to animals and a conservationist. I’m more Suprised you’ve watched this clip and came to the conclusion you have😂😂🤦♂️ SI was an amazing person, I respect both of these people so much for all they’ve done. But you’d be a fool to deny Steve didn’t get enjoyment from wrestling a croc too
@@christinamcilwaine350 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QptvUsZLxJ0.html what do you call this ? seems like jumping on a croc for entertainment to me.
I love David Attenborough and all that he stands for and has done for wildlife and conservation, which is beyond measure. However, in this instance, his description of Steve Irwin is a great shame indeed. Steve lived and breathed conservation, and education and dedicated his entire life to try and make this planet a wilder, better and brighter one. To say “I don’t think he (Steve) was evil” is a ridiculous thing to say. Yes, they are two very different men, from two very different backgrounds, but they are both exactly the same when it comes to trying to get people to love and care for wildlife and this planet, and that’s the only thing that really matters. Steve was a catalyst for good. Only good, and his heart was always in the right place. He piled everything back into conservation and his legacy still lives today through his family and through countless people who love and care for the wild just a little bit more because of him. I wish David had met Steve because his answer here just shows he didn’t know the real man.
I think they are different, and probably cater to somewhat different audiences. When I was a kid I was very into Steve Irwin-like action pacted animal documentaries. Now that I'm older I much prefer the type of thing sir David does. Their objective, though, is the same: to get people invested in the natural world.
As an Aussie, what he did was never abusive. When you live in the most uv heavy and dangerous animal covered countries your entire life - wrangling IS care. They were doing that to either relocate an animal safely or treat it medically. Nothing more. To question anything about that I think is due to the fact that David is not a veterinarian nor relocating animals as part of his profession. To not touch them could mean death or harm to either it or others around it and that's why Steve Irwin was vital. David is an intellectual, which is a very different job description. David was never trying to teach people how to survive, Steve was doing that with his show. You can love and respect an animal whilst assuring your safety.
Enjoy them both. The point Sir David was making was in simple terms he was not fond of zoos and said Steves heart was in the right place in spite of his differing views. David as an Englishman is an explorer and so a lot of the animals he documents are not around in England besides zoos, whereas Australia has a great amount of wildlife in the outback from kangaroos dingos and other assorted ones you won't see in the British isles and mainland Europe. Davids approach is to simply film the animals in their environment and prime and leave rarely interfering in natures affairs where as Steve as a zoo keeper was being filmed doing his day to day job, taking in animals for his zoo, sometimes rescuing them for release and sometimes doing what David tends to do albeit rarely and with that, my own criticism of Steve Irwin is personal safety and unfortunately that is ultimately what cost him his life albeit unintentionally as stingrays to my memory were not as studied as they are now and would be seen as probably unpredictable as of 2006 or mostly passive based on previous encounters, so Davids critique I believe was a fair one while acknowledging his intentions were pure in spite of his mixed feelings about zoos and the seemingly local reaction to more exotic and unique animals from around the outback that Australia gives in comparison to the almost none in uk besides wild rabbits and hares and the occasional fox and deer.
@@christinamcilwaine350of course he enjoyed it. Irwin loved every minute of what he did. Sir David is just saying they had very different attitudes towards conservation
I do genuinley think people are missing the point or getting too offended by this video. He never really spoke ill of Steve the first minute of the video was him praising him for his love of conservation, the only ill feeling in simple terms was just David not liking zoos and leaving animals to their devices being in his preference, its not really that deep if you listen to it in a neautral point of view. David and Steve are no better or worse than each other in the stuff they do that make them both unique or in Davids words "different". Chill the feck out lol
I love Sir David Attenborough a lot but I’m quite sad in the way he described Sir Steve Irwin, Steve was a wonderful man and a real gentleman and he did a lot more for wildlife than anyone
Okay people for context since i did my own research the question was what he thought about the other people such as Steve, Bear Grylls, Ray mears etc or what he thought about steve Irwin in general since all of these were the big ones of 00s in terms of wildlife and survival I do think people need to chill out and listen again if you listen carefully he pretty much said he didn't like Zoos and yes some of this stuff was fun for Steve Irwin if you work with animals you may as well have fun doing it lol He never called Steve Irwin evil he said "I don't think it is evil, just different" listen again then get back to me on this, this is the only clip I can find of it so take it for what it is
Mate animals live a brutal life, I got bandicoots that I feed every couple of days (don’t want them being dependant on me for food) but they regularly show up missing a tail or with infected scars. They fight on my lawn all the time if they get too close to eachother Interfering with an animal means NOTHING if you don’t hurt them. Sometimes I’ll mess with a mate by snatching one up and dropping it on their lap. The bloody thing still comes back the next day, nibbles my toes and asks for dinner People that don’t live within nature often see it as a thing that needs to be preserved like a museum exhibition, in reality we’re just another part of it
Steve was a very smart man. He knew the only way to get audience interested was to take them right where the action was. He knew if he did it this way.... he will reach a much wider audience than just someone sitting in the bushes and watching wildlife from a distance would. He explains in this interview at 29 min 21 seconds. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nuV_6U-z-og.html
While I have respect and affection for Steve Irwin, I think Attenborough’s critique is fair. He didn’t speak ill of him, he just explained that he personally didn’t like Irwin’s approach and he alluded to an apparently common moral criticism of Irwin. Attenborough was probably also addressing his comments to other conservationists listening.
David's rather mild critique of Steve Irwin here is very valid and supported by other zoologists and conservationists. What makes it complicated is not whether Steve's treatment of wild animals was always correct (it clearly wasn't if you just stop and think for a bit), but the way he made that part of his media personality combined with his real efforts at conservationism drew so much attention to the natural world that it becomes a matter of "does the good he did outweigh whatever bit of harm he may have caused?" and to me the answer to that is a resounding yes. That doesn't mean he wasn't too hands on with the animals he interacted with a lot of the time and eventually it cost him his life in his encounter with a wild stingray. He most likely frightened the animal and it lashed out and killed him because he wasn't cautious enough with it and didn't give it enough of a wide berth as he should have, tragic as the whole situation is, no one deserves to go out like he did... That being said, David Attenborough's work in this field is similarly if not more consequential and he's done it in a very consistently principled, ethical way towards the animals he and his collaborators document and so he absolutely has a right to point this out, that the best approach to dealing with wild animals is absolutely most of the time to just let them get about their business relatively undisturbed.
You do all sorts of things as a kid. But as an adult, jumping on crocs was for relocation or medical purposes. Horses, camels and even bulls, those are some of the animals that have to deal with humans riding them for fun.
Steve Irwin loved protected and educated people on the importance of wildlife conservation and need to save animals he didn't jump on crocs for fun it was a way to capture and relocate them so they don't get shot 🤬 how dare David Attenborough describe Steve like that so disrespectful definitely lost respect for him Rest In Peace Steve Irwin 🦘🙏 you changed our world 🌍 we miss you
Clearly more than half of you people commenting have not listened to what SDA said! Hes just saying SI was good guy but did not follow SDA own line of thought. People so quick to go on the attack and be offended. What a joke
I don’t like Attenborough now. He doesn’t understand. Such a shame he didn’t understand why steve jumped on crocodiles. He tried to save them by letting them know the danger of getting too close to human.. you think too highly of yourself Attenborough
"Evil" and "Steve Erwin" in the same sentence is embarrassing. It's a crocodile in a zoo. It's actually good enrichment for crocs to be moving around and trying to protect against a dominant male croc. Like literally these crocs wouldn't now survive in the wild, although to most standards, Steve's zoos were big and well cared for in comparison, it's still a zoo with limited enrichment for animals. They need enrichment to keep them body but most importantly their mind occupied of similar interaction the would have in the wild. I have a cockapoo and I wrestle him and chuck him about seemingly quite aggressively and he bites me back softly. Is that evil? David Attenborough used to steal wild animals and stuff them in suitcases with little oxygen on aeroplane's...Are you evil David? This clip is silly,
He literally said Steve WASNT evil, and praised his heart and efforts towards conservation ya fuckin twit. So what if Attenbourough didn't care much for Steve's hands on approach? That's his opinion and there isn't anything wrong with sharing it in the manner he did. They are both legends, have some respect.
I think the question may add context to what David was saying. Try to fill in the gaps, David never said Steve was evil, It make me wonder if the question was asked to david "Do you think Steve was evil"
He was asked what he thought about Steve Irwin as I believe it was coming up to 8 - 9 years this was 9 or 10 years ago or so, and also he pretty much said he preferred to let animals go and leave them be where they were filmed and just didn't like zoos that is what he was saying
Steve Irwin is equal to Attenborough. He did not speak ill of him at all. He praised him for the most part, he stated his difference of opinion, and that he did not agree with the hands on approach, but he never slated him. I really liked watching Steve Irwin, however I am not so far up his arse, that i would feel upset at what David said.
@@x66Hawk66x no Steve Irwin is above Attenborough, for one DA is a elite satanist, and a journalist. His a journalist. SI was a true hands on nature man. Not even in the same ball park.
We're not that short of exceptional human beings to give Steve Irwin such praise. Try Nancy Wake, for one. Or some of our leading scientists who have made world first breakthroughs. Not that yob.
