Reptile & Amphibian Forums

this guy is, in my opinion, not good for the herpetological community. first, he portrayed the retic as a man eating snake. although it is possible for extremely large snakes, 30 , to eat small children, under 5 years of age, our skeletal structure does not allow for snakes to eat us. our shoulders are too broad! also, this guy could not be more careless with venomous. the antagonizes the snakes to bite and strike at him. not to mention his handling methods, very reckless. this shows in the amount of times he has been bitten. they even have it on tape, him being bitten by a naja, naja naja if i recall correctly, because he was antagonizing the snake. not to mention he detroys all environments he enters. I think herpetologist and other researchers should leave habitat exactly as they found it, or their footsteps and effects should be covered up in an hour or so. what do you think?

kevin

These shows are of little real educational value, they are mostly for entertainment. If they always told the straight scoop about the animals they would lose audience. They have to embelish and dramatize. People are fascinated with animals that can eat them. If a Retic can't eat you, then it's just another big snake. Ho-hum. The way they handle the venomous animals adds drama and excitement to the show. It sets a very bad example, but they could care less about that.

The only ones that I consider legitimate Herpetologists are Mark O'Shea and Jeff Corwin. The rest are clowns in my opinion.
-----
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson

I would have to agree, I found a lot of his information feeding into the fears of the public. I was very disappointed in the show. I can only hope it gets better over time.

Miller
-----
Miller
0.1 Florida King
1.0 Chow Chow
0.2 Cats
1.1 Eastern Kings

I have seen 2 or 3 other shows by this idiot, and they are as bad, if not worse.
-----
Chris Harrison

I like Steve Erwin MUCH better than Jeff Corwin. Steve may over due it a bit with the Crocks, but he is very passionate about his work as well as informative. Jeff Corwin just trys to be funny when he's not. He also gives me the impression that he's never done anything with reptiles before the show was produced.

Just my opinion.
MissHisssss

I think they are all the same. I don't care for Steve Erwin's wife and how she tries to make it sound SO dramatic and if Steve will 'come out of it ok'. We all know he will.
Jeff Corwin can be stupid but I've liked some of his shows.
This 'snakemaster' guy is to 'rough' in my opinion both in the way he handles the animals and they way he talks.

The difference between Jeff Corwin and Steve Irwin is that Jeff Corwin has an education. The information Jeff Corwin gives out is correct and directed to help us understand the dire situation many of the regions he is visiting face.

Steve Irwin is relatively uneducated and because of this, he frequently gives out wrong information. It is obvious when ever tries to talk about anything other than "what a beauty" type stuff. My favorite pet peeve about Irwin is that there are only two i's in the word insectivorous, it isn't insectivorious - even in Australia! His show if fraught with examples of things he talks about but clearly doesn't understand.

Corwin's appeal is more intellectual. His jokes are intended to be understood by adults. He doesn't talk to an audience of 11 year olds.
-----
Chris Harrison

I believe Corwin is a herpetologist... Correct me if I am wrong. I have learned a lot from these shows. Irwin is very much into animal conservation and preaches it. I commend his efforts.

Jeff Corwin is, in fact, a Herpetologist. Steve Irwin does talk to conservation, and that is a good thing, but it's about the only good thing I see in his show (except perhaps some entertainment value for some people). He is far from a Herpetologist. He is simply a showman.
-----
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson

I thought wild caught prey wasn't safe because it risks the spread of parasites? Where a captive born/raised prey item should be for the most part parasite free. I understand the "in the wild" point of view but they're not in the wild. When a snake defecates in the wild it moves on and it's left behind. The same goes for a shed. That doesn't happen in an enclosure. They have to wait till we get home from work or wake up in the morning or whatever. It also runs the rick of ingesting something potentially toxic they prey ingested like pesticides, rat poison, or whatever. Am I mistaken here or is wild caught supposed to be in the last resort catagory for picky eaters (like salamanders for a picky ringneck)?

Well, you posted this under the wrong thread, but that's OK.

Yes, it is true that wild prey animals much more frequently carry parasites. And, yes it is true that they have a much greater chance of passing a parasite on to a snake that eats them. And..yes, using wild caught prey items should be a last resort.

But, that was not what you stated earlier. Your statement was "Actually I don't think a cat could actually pass a disease but it could still make the snake sick none the less." And my question to you was, "Why do you say that? Sick how? Why would a cat be any more likely to make a snake sick than any other small mammal?" If it can't pass disease to the snake (parasites IS a disease), then how will it make the snake sick?
-----
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson

Conservation is certainly good but sometimes Corwin gets a bit carried away. He blames poor, struggling people for infringing on the habitat of other animals. These humans are just animals trying to survive too. He talks like he has understanding of others world views but I still read an air of ethnocentrism from him. What does he expect these people to do when their cities are overpopulated? They can't just pack up and move to Canada; of course they are going to overtake the forest. Yes, animals are getting killed in the process, we all think that's sad but what does he suggest we do, kill the humans? Humans are part of the ecosystem and the evolutionary process.
Anyway, I still like to watch the show. I like to look at the animals. And the host is nice too look at too. I like the air of comedy he brings. I take any of the information provided on the Discovery network with a HUGE grain of salt. So much mis-information those clods put out.
I've not seen snakehunter I get the impression from the commercial that the host is pompous.

Molly

If I remember correctly this is Steve Irwin? I have seen a number of his shows and see little to recommend him as a naturalist or educator. He sensationalizes everything to the point of absolute misrepresentation. I also see very informative content in his programming. My biggest problem is with his self-serving ethics. In one particular episode he was catching Eastern Diamond Back Rattlesnakes. He (supposedly) had his face within striking distance of an (supposedly) unrestrained large Diamond Back. He stated that he was safe because he was being “one with the snake.” I found this to be a ridiculous claim with no pragmatic or factual credibility. As with all of his programs I have seen involving potentially dangerous animals he was taking an unnecessary risk and there were NO disclaimers. My impression of this man is that he is reckless and unprofessional. Any child who attempts to emulate him could easily get into serious trouble. I have heard from friends visiting Australia that he was being viewed as somewhat of a national embarrassment in his home country.

The Corwin guy is a bit too silly but I found him to be a cut above Irwin in credibility. I would let kids watch him where I would not want my kids watching the Croc Hunter. I admit having only seen a couple of Corwin’s shows.

I saw another guy who was doing a herp show in Australia. I forget his name but he was bearded and appeared to be Australian or British by his accent. Strangely enough he was walking around the “outback” barefooted. He handled several snakes, including venomous, with professionalism and sans all the sensationalism. He also gave correct and interesting natural history information. I only seen the one show with him but I was far more impressed with him than the other TV animal show hosts.

Where is Marlin Perkins when we need him lol.

Randy
-----
Firehouse Herps

Do you believe everything on tv? Most people don't. But most people prefer a guy sticking his head in a crocodiles mouth to the daily news. That is just the screwed up society we live in. Hey Iraq? Ready for Americanizing?!?!?!

I believe that when he physically flings snakes around simply to make himself look like a hero to a bunch of seven year olds, he is abusing animals.

I believe when he deliberately climbs a tree and releases a Boa Constrictor into a river so he can jump out of the tree onto it, he is abusing animals.

I have watched the way this guy treats animals on his stupid shows for years. I find it unecessary and offensive.

Although Steve Irwin is totally uneducated, often gives out wrong information, and spends most of his shows trying to make himself look like superman, he is always conscientious of the well-being of the animals he is using.

This South African Jackass has no such moral problem with abusing animals for entertainment purposes.
-----
Chris Harrison

And if people keep watching, it will stay on. Noone one watches, he is unemployeed. Just don't watch it. I watched the other night for my first and only time. I got pissed because of the false advertisement. "Man-eating" snake... PLEASE!!! I just wanted to see the size of its head. When I saw it, I was like "what moron belives this snake can eat an adult". I haven't watched since. I like nature shows, probably more than the next person, but let's just not watch and maybe this guy can just go back to taking pictures of flowers.

P.S. anyone notice, as I did, this guy is not a herp but a damn photographer?!?! Who is he to teach me about snakes?? What an idiot!!!!

Perhaps having four different types of people doing this type of show, with four different approaches, is a good thing. It not only gives us a choice, but also educates a bigger audience. I agree that some shows are more educational than others, but for those that choose to watch the least educational show because they like the guys approach better... well, at least they will learn a little. Which is better than nothing.

I know, I know.... some shows give out wrong info, but there IS some correct info given as well. I wish the world could be perfect with no bad info ever given... but there's just no such animal.

MissHisssss

Ok, oldherper, sorry I just found the second person with common sense. Thank you Miss Hiss!!!! You have been added to my "damn it's COMON SENSE people" group.

All these comments about Austin Stevens, Jeff Corwin, and Steve Irwin are interesting reading. There's a couple of threads on the Retic forum about it also. I've seen just a couple of the Austin Stevens shows (including the Retic one) and many Corwin/Irwin shows. They are all pretty entertaining.

It's funny that everybody seems to be upset that Stevens calls the big Retics "man eaters", which I guess should be changed to "small man eaters" or "small to medium size woman eaters" or "child eaters".

Would these people be okay with him calling them "people killers", because they damn sure can do that. But then again so can a 10 ft Burm, or a big dog or a horse or a pig or whatever.

Maybe he is over the top and careless but where else can you watch someone catching a 20 ft wild Retic? At least the animals are shown in the light of being magnificent creatures, and not something that is better off dead, which is the mindset of many, many people. Maybe herpers should lighten up a bit.