One of our nameless guests suggested that the group on this thread is gullible because they support the work of someone who is environmentally focused, and he/she suggests those groups are all corrupt. The naivete is on the part of that guest, for lumping all parties in this lurid dance as the same.

The spectrum of "environmental" organizations (and pseudo-environmental) organizations is vast. About 65 years ago (give or take, I haven't looked it up) Aldo Leopold was a founding member of the Wilderness Society, aimed at preserving wild land for wildlife, but Leopold was also a hunter, and he wouldn't have placed restrictions against hunting on public lands unless there were management reasons (such as scarcity or disease). Many other groups are now in existence, with varying degrees of protections built into their charters (Leopold's group may not have been the first, but it is the example I choose to give.) Then you have entirely NON-environmental groups, that are never-the-less lumped with environmental groups. I have in mind here PETA (People for the "ethical" treatment of animals, quotes are mine) and the Humane Society. Dealing with animals may or may not constitute environmental activity. You should see the scandalous way in which groups like the ASPCA and the Humane Society essentially scare people into making donations. (disclaimer: I donate locally to the Humane Society, not to any national office, in hopes my money stays here and does good for local pets.) And then you have true eco-terrorist groups like Dave Foreman's Earth First, "Monkey Wrenching" with deadly results.

To suggest that one person isn't as environmentally "sound" as another because they disagree with another environmentalist suggests that all environmentalists agree with each other on goals and strategies and work together. Nothing could be further from the case. And the public is largely clueless how to sort these various organizations into their respective categories. I suspect the IRS has a better idea of what these groups are up to than their hired PR/media folks do.

Steve Irwin's work will stand on its own. He was an icon in the field in which he worked, and I think in the long view he is going to be seen as a caretaker of wildlife despite his interactions with it and any disagreements about how to conduct his business.

SRS