Bob Clark (Industry and community irresponsibility?) INQUIRY

Originally Posted by The BoidSmith

Questioning the ethics of Bob Clark because of this incident is going a little too far IMHO. It was not a good choice (and I stated before) but stating he is an unethical individual because of that is stretching it. From the video it's very clear that Bob and Hanna were synthesizing different stations. Trying to hang Bob Clark for this is undeserved. I never purchased a snake from him but I still think he is one of the best around. Unfortunate choice of events? Yes! Was he dragged into something he didn't know it will turn that way? Possibly. Unethical? Not from my point of view.

I tend to agree there.

I read this thread, up to the point it had formed before looking at the videos linked in the first post. I also checked Bob's own forums, where there was a discussion of the subject going on and then, after having seen what others had to say, watched the videos- as they had become of interest.

It definitely wasn't an ideal demonstration of reptile handling and information that was given was misleading and incorrect. That said, I put most of that on Hannah's head rather than Bob Clark's- poorly handled attempts at showmanship have marked Hannah's entire career, although I never have cared much for most the edutainment jackholes that have shown up on TV.

I'd like to add a small disclaimer here- I am not personally as comfortable handling most elapids as I am handling crotalids and vipers, I have never kept elapids other than corals and my experience with them is, as a result, limited. I have owned and handled hots though and can say that the few times I have handled them with the specific intention of displaying them for an audience, it added dimensions and complexities that I had never before encountered when handling them for the purposes of routine captive maintenence or examination or being dropped into a photo box when field herping. It changes the goal of the handling and the approach the individual takes towards it, a certain akwardness is unavoidable and the way the handler utilizes their avaliable space changes dramatically.

I'm led to wonder who, as an individual, made decisions about the presentation and the segments. How much was Bob, how much was Jack and how much was a demand made by the producers or hosts of the various shows? The ideally presented public manipulation of a venomous species would have happened on a side-stage, in an enclosed area that the animal would be unable to escape from, by a single individual using a full set of the tools they personally selected based on their own approach and technique. A presentation that few audiences would respond well to, which is counter to the goals of Jack Hannah and the staff of the show itself; people who want that ooh-aah factor. Ultimately the decision to walk out on stage and go through with it is on the head of Bob Clark, but I also do not feel there was any signifigant and malicious act here that will have any implications beyond a lot of rancorous hollering from sanctimonious herpers with some kind of pre-existing chip on their shoulder.

So... my opionion is that it was poor presentation and possibly a less than well thought out decision, but not industrial Ragnarok by any stretch.

See what you learn on Fauna. Now I've read up on Ragnarok.
Good post Seamus.

My only problem with the "poor judgment" idea or blaming all this all on Hanna was the fact that they did this type of show Twice..Once is an oophss but twice shows me intent.

I don't have a personal problem with Bob Clark, I think we would all like to hear Bob Clarks answer has to why he did this. It truly makes me sad to hear all these things. At the same time I won't bury my head in the sand. I also believe we have to care for our hobby. With the talk of Boa/python bans, wouldn't someone that makes a living from Breeding pythons be more careful about what do/say in public?

This is only question, but do you think it's possible Bob Clark is trying to break into the "reptile showbiz", just like Hanna?

I still feel whether it was Bob Clark or any other well known person in our industry, when making public appearances their actions can effect us all by the way our hobby is viewed by the public.

I want Bob Clark to stop making those types of public appearances and voicing my opinion here or writing him a personal letter is my only option.

If we say what he did is O.K. and write it off...wouldn't we be saying this is acceptable behavior?

The bottom line is that we're on the doorstep of having the government at the very least regulate, and at the very most obliterate our entire industry. Maybe I'm naive but I feel that people like Bob Clark, who have considerable pull, and the money to actually matter to the legislators, have a responsibility to the hobby/ industry that has put them where they are to act as spokesmen for herpetoculture... not as clowns. Would Wilbanks have done this on television??? How about Kevin? I doubt it. Bob isn't some kid who found a cobra so they put him on Letterman... he's a middle aged grown man and one of the five or so captains of this industry. Nothing but bad news and more restrictive legislation can come from a guy like him dropping his pants on national television like that... venemoid or not.

Originally Posted by LadyViper

If we say what he did is O.K. and write it off...wouldn't we be saying this is acceptable behavior?

Lady Viper,

If that's your real name... You know the rules of the BOI, real names plase.

No one implied this is OK or that iot was acceptable behavior. What we are saying is that going from unacceptable to unethical there is a stretch. Bad choice, yes; mistake, yes; deserving a public apology, yes; but I'm not ready to bring his ethics into question because of this incident.

Thanks

Originally Posted by LadyViper

This is only question, but do you think it's possible Bob Clark is trying to break into the "reptile showbiz", just like Hanna?

It's a possibility that had occured to me, or that there was some kind of contractual obligation behind the appearances- that Bob had signed up to make the appearances without first hammering out the details of the segments.

The stupid wicker basket, the whole "one drop can kill an elephant" line and the flutes... they all strike me as being in line with Hannah's attitude and approach to showmanship. None of the rest of us have any of the details about how or why Bob ended up being attached to the segments or- and this is the important part- how much personal responsibility and control he had in their planning and implimentation.

A bit of outside perspective I found kind of amusing... Bob was being blasted for not making it known that the snake was a venomoid. If he had said it was a venomoid, there would have been detractors lining up to harp on that point. If he was somehow contracted to do these appearances and mistakenly didn't specify a scripted set of events and had backed out, he'd be blasted for not fufilling whatever agreement he had set up. While I do fully understand the importance of setting a positive public image for the hobby and the industry, *some* of the complaints here seem a lot like sour grapes to me- the strength of response is not proportional to the infraction.

Would Wilbanks have done this on television??? How about Kevin? I doubt it.

If you mean Kevin McCurley, he has already done far worse. NERD is about the worst offender for public asshattery, mishandling and misinformation and has, unfortunately, been headed more and more in that direction for several years now. You want to see true public disasters, a few web searches looking for terms like "NERD" "Cobra" "Venomoid" will bring up details. At the very least, Bob and Jack weren't having grade school kids freehandle garage butchered "who knows if it was done right" void jobs. Kevin... ha!

Originally Posted by The BoidSmith

Lady Viper,

If that's your real name... You know the rules of the BOI, real names plase.

Her real name is listed under her login in the "member status" or "member rank" field that can be customized. It's also listed in her signature area, which is still visible on her profile, although one of the changes Rich made to member groups pulled the visible signatures from the posts of members in some of the free groups.

Seamus, I can tell you one thing about personal character, I'd rather be sued by Jack Hanna for not meeting my obligation to "preform" on a show rather than portraying reptile enthusiast as irresponsible, reckless individuals who put others in harms way.

Venomoid or not that snake hit the floor in both shows. What was bobs role in the planning stages????? Who knows, but he knew what the game plan was before he walked on stage, it was his employees animal. After the fox and friends show, he saw Brian bring the animal to far out and saw what happened, HE then lost control of it on Letterman's show by again bringing it out to far.

It would have taken a gun on my son's head to force me out on stage a second time to not smack Jack and tell him the way it was going to play out.

We have all been placed in positions of lets call it peer pressure. Jack Hanna, Letterman, Millions of viewers, true character shows itself by the decisions we make while under pressure. Bob failed, plain and simple. He failed the keepers of thousands of customers he's sold snakes to as he only potentially aided additional legislation, he failed the industry that has supplied him his lively hood for the fast majority of his life.

I viewed both prior segments prior to their posting here, as they were becoming popular in many links elsewhere. Quite disappointed in all that I saw, but especially so with Hanna. How ever much Bob was snookered, he's still a big boy, and was a willing prop.

It is clear that it was a planned skit. They did it twice on two shows. To some extent all participants were briefed, as even Letterman mentions something about it being fixed as he moves away. My guess is that all involved, to include the audience, had some briefing. That said, just the sight of a snake in close quarters is enough to generate the reactions seen by all but Hanna, who was clearly acting. Bob treated it like a venemoid. Its just a shame they didn't say it was so to the viewing TV audience. Hanna fully knew, yet hyped the danger aspect of it with his "one drop kills an elephant..." and comically almost falling over a chair in his own fake retreat. That's deception, and rates as unethical IMMHO, because it was done for money at the expense of others, directly or indirectly. Hanna is aware of the legal issues within the community, and yet fed that fire for a few bucks. Common sense says Bob did not orchestrate this. Hanna , as he is the star. A simple announcement to the viewing TV audience that it had been "fixed" afterward would have changed just about all. I expect Hanna called all the shots. He must be hurting for money or ratings to now be doing vaudeville.

To debate everyone in one post….

I posted as an “INQUIRY” because I wanted to know if this was an isolated incident, or if there have been other times he has stepped out and made an of himself, and endangered our hobby, simply for his own personal gain.
__________________________________________________ _______________

All of the discussion of contracts and the like, with regard to whether he was intentionally irresponsible on stage, are moot.

* If he signed a contract agreeing to do things that way, then he was not only irresponsible on-stage when things were more fluid and hard to control, but well before that when he negotiated (if at all) and signed the contract, when things were calm and there was plenty of time to think.

* When he signed said contract he was, likely, made aware of what he would be handling. Does Bob Clark have ANY experience with hots? How about elapids? How about unruly elapids, overheated by spotlights, in a less-than-desirable handling environment? Then why agree to do it? I will tell you; personal gain and hubris.

Basically it simply becomes a question of when, and how many different times, he acted irresponsibly.

* By signing the contract he recklessly endangered our hobby in exchange for money and/or fame.

Is this not a prime example of unethicality when someone sells out themselves AND others for money/fame?
__________________________________________________ _______________

And I don’t think he should have broadcast that it was a venomoid (this is how it’s spelled by the way…not venemoid). I don’t think the general public needs to even know venomoids exist, as they would view them as “hots with training wheels” and all the Billy-Bob’s would want one to pass around at their next NASCAR get together at their trailer-house.

I think Bob should have treated it like a responsible herper does with ALL hots, with respect and caution.

So, no my opinion has not changed, and I feel, ad do the mods and owners of this site, that I posted correctly. What I have found, in PM and on the forum, is that, while Bob has made some mistakes, this is new ground he has broken with regard to screwing up.