In a show I saw recently he visited an area where crocodiles had recently killed a man. He criticised the local people for feeding the crocodiles and encouraging an association with this place for easy pickings as partly the cause of the fatality.

He then placed himself and film crew at risk by to wading about in the water at half light looking for the place where the crocodiles were nesting. He was later shown feeding the crocodiles himself.

The viewer did not learn much about the crocodiles which were just used to provide a thrilling backdrop. It is a cheap way to exploit wildlife in order to make a TV show and does little for conservation.

You can see why this style now has so many imitators, when you compare the cost with the shows where you do actually learn about the lives of wildlife. Where a team have spent many months and in some cases years, often in terrible conditions in order to produce enough footage to fill the same TV time slot with quality images and information. But manage to do this without stressing the subjects and without affecting the everyday lives of the real stars.

Perhaps when the rest of the TV snake chasers and croc prodders have been poisioned or trampled - there will be money available for a return to the sort of wildlife film-making where the daily lives of wildlife itself plays the starring role.

I am sure he was a nice bloke and of course it is bad news for his family and friends. But many far more committed but lesser known workers for conservation around the world would also have died today and also left grieving families but would not be receiving anywhere near the same sort of interest and concern.