Elephant kills Scottish tourist on Koh Samui

[oldsailor35]

First mistake is using male elephants with tourists. You'll find most, if not all the accounts of elephant attacks in Thailand involve male elephants.

Second mistake is the level of training and intelligence of the mahouts.

But perhaps they feel that losing a tourist or two every year to angry elephants is a reasonable cost of doing business.

Both male and female elephants are known to attack people .

A "broken" elephant is already psychologically damaged.....

what I think you are referring to is "musth" which is a period that affects male elephants and can make them extremely unpredictable and aggressive - not just to humns but anything including other elephants.

As yet I've not read anything to suggest this elephant was in musth.......it also depends on the age of the elephant

Well I said 'most' so you hardly needed to make your point. And the fact that females do not undergo must, makes them the logical choice as it is much more unlikely they will become unpredictable and enraged from a simple elephant ride.

No - I'm sorry you give the impression that females don't attack...this is not true and even "most" is debatable. You are making baseless assumptions about elephant behaviour and thus giving misleading information. Elephants do NOT have to be in musth to attack in fact they usually aren't.

elephants on must are usually isolated.....chained even and give definite signs they are in this state.

I think i recall a female Elephant going berserk a few years ago at Pattaya.

[BangkokKen]

Don't use wild animals as cattle.

This is ABUSE and it is a surprise that this does not happen more often.

[Traveling Sailor]

Elephant Kills Scottish Tourist on Koh Samui

KOH SAMUI – A Scottish man has been killed and a mahout seriously injured by an elephant gone berserk during a trekking tour on Koh Samui.

The 36-year-old Scottish tourist was riding the male elephant with his 16-year-old daughter in a forested area of tambon Bor Phud this afternoon when, witnesses told police, Pamang, a Myanmar mahout, climbed down from 13-year-old elephant to take photos with the victim and his daughter.

The elephant struck Pamang with his trunk and stabbed him in the torso with a tusk.

The elephant then unseated the Scotsman and his daughter, then stomped the Scotsman and gored him in the chest with a tusk, killing him instantly. The bull elephant then ran into the forest.

Full story: http://www.chiangraitimes.com/elephant-kills-scottish-tourist-on-koh-samui.html

-- Chiang Rai Times 2016-02-02

At least the writer of this article understands how to use the English language, unlike the Samui Times reporter. Who would have guessed that a reporter at the Chiang Rai Times would have better English skills than a reporter for the Samui Times.

[cumgranosalum]

RIP my country man, I hope they do not decide to something awful to the elephant to keep TAT and the animal rights people appeased.

To the "riding animals" brigade are you serious?

Without the help of elephants, horses, donkeys this modern world we have would still be in the dark ages.

I abhor the abuse of animals in Thailand, or anywhere else in the world.

Mahuts love their Elephants, it's a relationship that can Span decades, do not deride these guys or their majestic mounts!

yes -we are serious - you are making the classic assumptions that ill-informed make about elephants.

First mistake: they are NOT comparable with other "domesticated" beasts of burden

They have been used for riding (and even war) but their skeletons are not suited to bearing loads on their backs.

Their main use has always been for PULLING which is a completely different thing.

You imply that the history of the elephant goes back millennia - this is actually not true - they just weren't very good at it and in those days people had know idea about how an elephant's body worked (or any other body for that matter). They had no explanation for the not uncommon paralysis in elephants that had been repeatedly forced to carry stuff on their backs. You will still see elephants today that have paralyzed rear legs etc. due to this.

Then you speak the unspeakable........

"Mahouts love their Elephants, it's a relationship that can Span decades, do not deride these guys or their majestic mounts!" - in Thailand THIS IS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!!!

most "mahouts" - and they really don't deserve this name are employed part-time or short term - they are only partially "trained" and in reality just know a series of often violent actions to make their elephants perform for the public.

Often elephants are owned by an owner who LEASES them to a "mahout" who then takes the animal away long or short term to make money out of it any way he can. There are few laws to protect the animal; they are no more than chattels. Even in genuine conservation parks, the relationship between minder and elephant is often only short term as the pay is simply not enough to keep a young man and his family.

The idea of a long mahout/elephant relationship is just a "Kipling myth".

In the west we all abhor animal cruelty; the problem is so many in the west are too ignorant of the issues to recognise it when they see it.

That is not quite right yet. It's not just a "Kipling myth" as you said.

Indeed A mahout is an elephant rider, trainer, or keeper.Usually, a mahout starts as a boy in the 'family profession' when he is assigned an elephant early in its life. They remain bonded to each other throughout their lives.

^{That's what Wiki says and I saw it in India by myself.}

^{Nowadays elephants are "rented" out by the owners. It's unfortunately a business, no matter it's suitable for those animals.}

^{And you are not quite right concerning the "use" of elephants in history. They did not pull but carry a lot. If you want to know more please see here:}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_elephant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_elephants_in_Europe

actually you are mistaken - I mentioned earlier elephants were used in war and as beats of burden, but if you read up on it you i will see that the numbers are in fact both occasional and limited - take Hannibal for instance - the value of an elephant in war is actually limited, it was the impression it made that was foremost. Check your references.

I also pointed out that many of these elephants used were damaged - often in the spine - by this work;. That is no different today, except that they are probably used more and longer traipsing around with groups of tourists on their backs on poorly made and improperly fastened seating contraptions.

Elephants used in ceremonial instances again are very small in numbers compared to those used for hauling such as in logging etc.

when I said Kipling myth, I was referring to the fact that NOWADAYS people have the idea of a mahout that Kipling wrote about 100 yers ago...this is virtually non-extistant - even in India there is not enough money to support a mahout and elephant for a lifetime anymore.

Edited February 2, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[webfact]

Samui elephant goes on rampage killing a British tourist



KOH SAMUI: -- An elephant in Samui Island went rampage yesterday while a British tourist and daughter were on its back, goring the father to death and injuring its Myanmar mahout.

The foreign victim was identified as 36-year-old Gareth Crowe.

He was trekking on the elephant with his teenage daughter, Eilidh Hughes,and a local guide when the elephant “Golf” turned violent.

According to police investigation, witnesses told them that the mahout, the elephant’s handler, climbed down to take photos of the tourists when it hit him with its trunk and stabbed him in his body with a tusk.

The elephant then was said to go on rampage, throwing the father and daughter off his back before trampling the man and stabbing him in the chest with a tusk, killing him instantly.

The teenage girl escaped with minor injuries in the fall as the elephant ran off into the forest. She was admitted to Bangkok Samui hospital.

Surat Thani governor Wongsiri Phromchana said he planned to summon all concerned authorities and business operators for a meeting to prevent the recurrence of such incident.

He said the elephant has now returned normal but instruction was given to veterinarians to prepare tranquilliser dart in case it turned violent again.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/content/149152


-- Thai PBS 2016-02-02

[webfact]

Will the death of a Brit tourist on Koh Samui wake the world up to elephant cruelty?
STAFF WRITER



BANGKOK: -- A 36-year old Scottish tourist has tragically died after being thrown from an elephant during a trekking expedition on Koh Samui.

Gareth Crowe, along with his partner’s 6-year old daughter, was riding an elephant on the Thai island when the animal grew angry at the accompanying mahout, stabbing and seriously injuring him with his tusk before throwing off Crowe and 6-year old Eilidh, reports The Guardian.

Crowe was killed instantly after being thrown, stamped and stabbed by the elephant, who has been identified as 13-year old Golf.

Eilidh is recovering in Samui’s Bangkok International Hospital with her mother at her bedside.

Crowe’s partner, Catherine Hughes, has commented, “We were all here on holiday. My son and I didn’t go on the elephants. I’ve been given no information as to what happened or how it happened.”

Witnesses have said that Golf appeared distressed before the rampage and had been refusing to follow instructions while the mahout attempted to take photos of Crowe and Eilidh. The mahout then reportedly struck Golf a number of times with a hook before he attacked, according to the Bangkok Post.

Local governor Wongsiri Phromchana has confirmed an investigation has been launched into the incident.

Crowe’s tragic death and the injuries borne by the mahout and young Eilidh are not the first and won’t be the last tourists will suffer due to the cruelty inflicted on elephants by hubristic humans looking to turn them from wild animals into tourist attractions.

“Elephants are cruelly abused to tame them enough so they give rides and perform in shows,” commented a spokeswoman from World Animal Protection.

Full story: http://whatsonsukhumvit.com/will-the-death-of-a-brit-tourist-on-koh-samui-wake-the-world-up-to-elephant-cruelty/


-- (c) What's on Sukhumvit 2016-02-02

[sawadee1947]

On another website I read the story:

The elephant was a male and already the whole day wild, meaning in heat. To get him to work the mahout used the iron hook many times.

For a photo the Scottish with his 16 year old daughter sat on his neck teasing him with bananas. When they climbed down the elephant attacked first the mahout and then the Scot. At the end he killed him with his tusk and ran away.

So the tourist died because of greediness. This male elephant shouldn't have used for carrying anybody but to stay in his coral for a while.

It's a shame. RIP

OK - firstly - the they are saying the elephant was in musth - this is NOT "in heat"

This means one of rwo things - they are looking ofr an excuse, and they have put their foot in it because they basically have admitted they don't know how to handle an elephant.

The use of these "ankus" or hooks is normal practice on elephants - it is of course very distasteful and cruel, but most tourists choose to ignore it.

if the hook was being used more than normal, it also shows further that the keeper didn't know what he was doing....whether or not this goaded the animal further cannot be really established and tin musth and elephant's behaviour is unpredictable - goad or not.

the concept of "teasing" is yet another example of anthropomorphism and really doesn't help very much.

i don't actually think that ANY newspaper report at present is a very good guide to what happened - only a full inquiry would achieve that....but we know full well that all will happen is a load of platitudes from the local authorities designed to calm the public and keep the tourist trade coming.

well, you are right. Every newspaper produces a slightly different story depending on the view

[Kerryd]

Will the death of a Brit tourist on Koh Samui wake the world up to elephant cruelty?

STAFF WRITER

LoL - not a chance in h3ll.

Did the murder of 2 backpackers on Koh Tao waken anyone up to anything ? Nothing has changed.

Have all the deaths in various nightclub/condo/hotel fires woken anyone up to anything ? Nothing has changed.

You could have a half a dozen incidents like this every year and the only thing that would change is that every year there would be more tourists, more elephants and more deaths.

[cumgranosalum]

On another website I read the story:

The elephant was a male and already the whole day wild, meaning in heat. To get him to work the mahout used the iron hook many times.

For a photo the Scottish with his 16 year old daughter sat on his neck teasing him with bananas. When they climbed down the elephant attacked first the mahout and then the Scot. At the end he killed him with his tusk and ran away.

So the tourist died because of greediness. This male elephant shouldn't have used for carrying anybody but to stay in his coral for a while.

It's a shame. RIP

OK - firstly - the they are saying the elephant was in musth - this is NOT "in heat"

This means one of rwo things - they are looking ofr an excuse, and they have put their foot in it because they basically have admitted they don't know how to handle an elephant.

The use of these "ankus" or hooks is normal practice on elephants - it is of course very distasteful and cruel, but most tourists choose to ignore it.

if the hook was being used more than normal, it also shows further that the keeper didn't know what he was doing....whether or not this goaded the animal further cannot be really established and tin musth and elephant's behaviour is unpredictable - goad or not.

the concept of "teasing" is yet another example of anthropomorphism and really doesn't help very much.

i don't actually think that ANY newspaper report at present is a very good guide to what happened - only a full inquiry would achieve that....but we know full well that all will happen is a load of platitudes from the local authorities designed to calm the public and keep the tourist trade coming.

well, you are right. Every newspaper produces a slightly different story depending on the view

Really it's the source and the knowledge of the reporter......some are just regurgitating the same story with a coupe of their own edits. No-one seems to have first-hand conversations with any of the elephant owners/keepers involved and I don't see any evidence of knowledge about elephant behaviour by ay of the articles.

If an elephant is in mush even the most stupid handler would not let it come anywhere near the public.

however these animals are used day in, day out to carry people about.......they are saddled with frames for carrying the tourists which at best are poory constructed with little acknowledgement of the elephants skeletal structure. If this carriage is poorly mounted or attached - (the ropes often cause running sores and scarring) - it would be very likely to cause the animals pain and I wouldn't be at all surprised if this could affect the animal's behaviour........it might even see the passengers as the source of its pain.

Edited February 2, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[canuckamuck]

Both male and female elephants are known to attack people .

A "broken" elephant is already psychologically damaged.....

what I think you are referring to is "musth" which is a period that affects male elephants and can make them extremely unpredictable and aggressive - not just to humns but anything including other elephants.

As yet I've not read anything to suggest this elephant was in musth.......it also depends on the age of the elephant

Well I said 'most' so you hardly needed to make your point. And the fact that females do not undergo must, makes them the logical choice as it is much more unlikely they will become unpredictable and enraged from a simple elephant ride.

No - I'm sorry you give the impression that females don't attack...this is not true and even "most" is debatable. You are making baseless assumptions about elephant behaviour and thus giving misleading information. Elephants do NOT have to be in musth to attack in fact they usually aren't.

elephants on must are usually isolated.....chained even and give definite signs they are in this state.

Here is what I said exactly "First mistake is using male elephants with tourists. You'll find most, if not all the accounts of elephant attacks in Thailand involve male elephants."

If I gave you the impression that female elephants don't attack from those two sentences the problem is with your reading comprehension.

I imagine there are situations where females are likely to attack. Situations where a calf is involved, or protection of the herd. But tourists in Thailand are not experiencing that situation very often. What I have seen over and over again here is people being killed in what should be a totally safe and non threatening situation by male elephants. Almost every time, there is confirmation that the elephant was in must. And in the Bangkok post the article does imply this elephant was in must too.

So, in my estimation, it is a mistake to use male elephants for this purpose and the removal of them from the riding stock would probably cut down on incidents of enraged elephants killing guests considerably. This was an unbelievably sad and avoidable tragedy.

[crazykopite]

Having lived on the island for 10 years I have taken many friends / family to see the elephants normal bananas are purchased after a ride I have yet to see anyone get on a ride holding bananas , the other issue is that the cages they use for the passengers are such that it is impossible to feed the elephant whilst seated on the cage. I hate going on them the last time I was on one was with my stepson and during the ride the handler stopped and walked off to have a pee the elephant started roaming unattended and if I was honest I was crapping myself. I am sure that the daughter will tell what really happened once she is well enough I have an issue with these rides in that most of the time the poor elephant is not given enough time to recover and rest but as long as tourists want to experience a ride on one of them it will always be the same because there is to much money involved RIP to the deceased no one should come on a holiday only to be taken home in a wooden box my prayers and thoughts are with the families.

[sawadee1947]

RIP my country man, I hope they do not decide to something awful to the elephant to keep TAT and the animal rights people appeased.

To the "riding animals" brigade are you serious?

Without the help of elephants, horses, donkeys this modern world we have would still be in the dark ages.

I abhor the abuse of animals in Thailand, or anywhere else in the world.

Mahuts love their Elephants, it's a relationship that can Span decades, do not deride these guys or their majestic mounts!

yes -we are serious - you are making the classic assumptions that ill-informed make about elephants.

First mistake: they are NOT comparable with other "domesticated" beasts of burden

They have been used for riding (and even war) but their skeletons are not suited to bearing loads on their backs.

Their main use has always been for PULLING which is a completely different thing.

You imply that the history of the elephant goes back millennia - this is actually not true - they just weren't very good at it and in those days people had know idea about how an elephant's body worked (or any other body for that matter). They had no explanation for the not uncommon paralysis in elephants that had been repeatedly forced to carry stuff on their backs. You will still see elephants today that have paralyzed rear legs etc. due to this.

Then you speak the unspeakable........

"Mahouts love their Elephants, it's a relationship that can Span decades, do not deride these guys or their majestic mounts!" - in Thailand THIS IS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!!!

most "mahouts" - and they really don't deserve this name are employed part-time or short term - they are only partially "trained" and in reality just know a series of often violent actions to make their elephants perform for the public.

Often elephants are owned by an owner who LEASES them to a "mahout" who then takes the animal away long or short term to make money out of it any way he can. There are few laws to protect the animal; they are no more than chattels. Even in genuine conservation parks, the relationship between minder and elephant is often only short term as the pay is simply not enough to keep a young man and his family.

The idea of a long mahout/elephant relationship is just a "Kipling myth".

In the west we all abhor animal cruelty; the problem is so many in the west are too ignorant of the issues to recognise it when they see it.

That is not quite right yet. It's not just a "Kipling myth" as you said.

Indeed A mahout is an elephant rider, trainer, or keeper.Usually, a mahout starts as a boy in the 'family profession' when he is assigned an elephant early in its life. They remain bonded to each other throughout their lives.

^{That's what Wiki says and I saw it in India by myself.}

^{Nowadays elephants are "rented" out by the owners. It's unfortunately a business, no matter it's suitable for those animals.}

^{And you are not quite right concerning the "use" of elephants in history. They did not pull but carry a lot. If you want to know more please see here:}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_elephant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_elephants_in_Europe

actually you are mistaken - I mentioned earlier elephants were used in war and as beats of burden, but if you read up on it you i will see that the numbers are in fact both occasional and limited - take Hannibal for instance - the value of an elephant in war is actually limited, it was the impression it made that was foremost. Check your references.

I also pointed out that many of these elephants used were damaged - often in the spine - by this work;. That is no different today, except that they are probably used more and longer traipsing around with groups of tourists on their backs on poorly made and improperly fastened seating contraptions.

Elephants used in ceremonial instances again are very small in numbers compared to those used for hauling such as in logging etc.

when I said Kipling myth, I was referring to the fact that NOWADAYS people have the idea of a mahout that Kipling wrote about 100 yers ago...this is virtually non-extistant - even in India there is not enough money to support a mahout and elephant for a lifetime anymore.

Concerning "Kipling: you are not quite right. (it's never too late to learn)

Real Mahouts (the name comes from Hindi) you can find still in India. And - they spend their whole life with their elephants - even NOWADAYS. The reason for this is that most of the elephants we saw belong to the government. And the government can pay for their soldiers (!). They treat "their" elephants like "friends" and care for them as friends. Some stay even at night with them. But this is today unusual though.

So Kiplings picture is still alive. Somehow. Somewhere. (Attached a photo)

I always assumed elephants would be a common sight in India, but there are only a few places in the country where you can really see them (and ride them), and Jaipur is one of them.

[sawadee1947]

Both male and female elephants are known to attack people .

A "broken" elephant is already psychologically damaged.....

what I think you are referring to is "musth" which is a period that affects male elephants and can make them extremely unpredictable and aggressive - not just to humns but anything including other elephants.

As yet I've not read anything to suggest this elephant was in musth.......it also depends on the age of the elephant

Well I said 'most' so you hardly needed to make your point. And the fact that females do not undergo must, makes them the logical choice as it is much more unlikely they will become unpredictable and enraged from a simple elephant ride.

No - I'm sorry you give the impression that females don't attack...this is not true and even "most" is debatable. You are making baseless assumptions about elephant behaviour and thus giving misleading information. Elephants do NOT have to be in musth to attack in fact they usually aren't.

elephants on must are usually isolated.....chained even and give definite signs they are in this state.

Here is what I said exactly "First mistake is using male elephants with tourists. You'll find most, if not all the accounts of elephant attacks in Thailand involve male elephants."

If I gave you the impression that female elephants don't attack from those two sentences the problem is with your reading comprehension.

I imagine there are situations where females are likely to attack. Situations where a calf is involved, or protection of the herd. But tourists in Thailand are not experiencing that situation very often. What I have seen over and over again here is people being killed in what should be a totally safe and non threatening situation by male elephants. Almost every time, there is confirmation that the elephant was in must. And in the Bangkok post the article does imply this elephant was in must too.

So, in my estimation, it is a mistake to use male elephants for this purpose and the removal of them from the riding stock would probably cut down on incidents of enraged elephants killing guests considerably. This was an unbelievably sad and avoidable tragedy.

I agree with you:

As I said before it's all about greediness. If you have an elephant (maybe only rented) this animal has to earn money. The loss of money is more important than any safety

[ozyjon]

Fleeing the scene seems to be a common result here!

I stopped getting involved with elephants here when I saw the blood dripping from one after the mahouts use of the hooked stick.

My sentiments as well, i saw this happening in Phuket, it made me so sad i nearly cried,

the blood and the scars on the elephants head made me sick, what was worse were all

the tourists sitting on the elephant smiling for the camera, all i could think of was,,,

[anon467367354]

tis the season again where money takes precedence over safety.

Interesting that the fault may lie where the tourist teased the elephant with a banana,

but killed the handler when trying to take a picture.

First blame the Caucasian, then other than that no explanation.

[cumgranosalum]

assic assumptions that ill-informed make about elephants.

First mistake: they are NOT comparable with other "domesticated" beasts of burden

They have been used for riding (and even war) but their skeletons are not suited to bearing loads on their backs.

Their main use has always been for PULLING which is a completely different thing.

You imply that the history of the elephant goes back millennia - this is actually not true - they just weren't very good at it and in those days people had know idea about how an elephant's body worked (or any other body for that matter). They had no explanation for the not uncommon paralysis in elephants that had been repeatedly forced to carry stuff on their backs. You will still see elephants today that have paralyzed rear legs etc. due to this.

Then you speak the unspeakable........

"Mahouts love their Elephants, it's a relationship that can Span decades, do not deride these guys or their majestic mounts!" - in Thailand THIS IS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!!!

most "mahouts" - and they really don't deserve this name are employed part-time or short term - they are only partially "trained" and in reality just know a series of often violent actions to make their elephants perform for the public.

Often elephants are owned by an owner who LEASES them to a "mahout" who then takes the animal away long or short term to make money out of it any way he can. There are few laws to protect the animal; they are no more than chattels. Even in genuine conservation parks, the relationship between minder and elephant is often only short term as the pay is simply not enough to keep a young man and his family.

The idea of a long mahout/elephant relationship is just a "Kipling myth".

In the west we all abhor animal cruelty; the problem is so many in the west are too ignorant of the issues to recognise it when they see it.

That is not quite right yet. It's not just a "Kipling myth" as you said.

Indeed A mahout is an elephant rider, trainer, or keeper.Usually, a mahout starts as a boy in the 'family profession' when he is assigned an elephant early in its life. They remain bonded to each other throughout their lives.

^{That's what Wiki says and I saw it in India by myself.}

^{Nowadays elephants are "rented" out by the owners. It's unfortunately a business, no matter it's suitable for those animals.}

^{And you are not quite right concerning the "use" of elephants in history. They did not pull but carry a lot. If you want to know more please see here:}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_elephant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_elephants_in_Europe

actually you are mistaken - I mentioned earlier elephants were used in war and as beats of burden, but if you read up on it you i will see that the numbers are in fact both occasional and limited - take Hannibal for instance - the value of an elephant in war is actually limited, it was the impression it made that was foremost. Check your references.

I also pointed out that many of these elephants used were damaged - often in the spine - by this work;. That is no different today, except that they are probably used more and longer traipsing around with groups of tourists on their backs on poorly made and improperly fastened seating contraptions.

Elephants used in ceremonial instances again are very small in numbers compared to those used for hauling such as in logging etc.

when I said Kipling myth, I was referring to the fact that NOWADAYS people have the idea of a mahout that Kipling wrote about 100 yers ago...this is virtually non-extistant - even in India there is not enough money to support a mahout and elephant for a lifetime anymore.

Concerning "Kipling: you are not quite right. (it's never too late to learn)

Real Mahouts (the name comes from Hindi) you can find still in India. And - they spend their whole life with their elephants - even NOWADAYS. The reason for this is that most of the elephants we saw belong to the government. And the government can pay for their soldiers (!). They treat "their" elephants like "friends" and care for them as friends. Some stay even at night with them. But this is today unusual though.

So Kiplings picture is still alive. Somehow. Somewhere. (Attached a photo)

I always assumed elephants would be a common sight in India, but there are only a few places in the country where you can really see them (and ride them), and Jaipur is one of them.

I just don't think you understand the significance of my use of the name Kipling. He was an imperialist who wrote extensively about India in "glowing" and poetic terms - one of things he did was glorify some of the humbler working people.

In reality this image is distorted - and it appears you accept this distortion. Being a mahout used to be a common job in India - NOWADYS irit is not. Furthermore the relationship depicted by writers like Kipling is not necessarily true.

The reality is that being a mahout involved - and still involves - a mixture of folklore, superstition and a little bit of practicality.....but little or no science....or appreciation of the natural behaviour of an elephant.

It has always involved breaking in practices that are frankly barbaric and cruel beyond belief it also has a way of dealing with musth that seems unbelievably cruel - they starve and deliberately dehydrate the animals - this has been shown to shorten the musth, but causes hu=ge distress to the animal.

Being a "mahout" - even a traditional long-term one - doesn't guarantee or imply that the elephant is being treated well - in fact it still involves inflicting pain every day as a form of dominance and discipline....in India all in the name of ceremony.

..and while you're at it check out the number f elephants Hannibal used - it will put matters in perspective

Edited February 2, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[ezzra]

This knee jerk reactions are understandable, but bear in minds that those beasts are wild that have

been tamed to work with humans, and of the hundreds of thousands of elephant's rides by locals,

mahouts and tourists, the odd one killed killed or injured, that's well within the acceptable margins of risks....

Just think of the billions those animals bring to this country in tourist's revenues, feeding a whole industry

of Thai people connected to working with the elephants.....

Edited February 2, 2016 by ezzra

[stoneyboy]

Another needless death of a tourist.

Thailand is increasingly in the media spot light with all these incidents,Tigers,Elephants,illegal fishing and slavery,murders of tourists,bombs,road traffic accidents the list goes on and on.

They are walking a very thin rope with many western nations wether they are concerned or not,Mai pen rai will be their downfall before long.

RIP Scotsman

And before long if they carry on RIP Thailand.

[bkk75]

Very sad.

Elephants on Samui? Really? When would an island have an elephant population? Was there logging there?I suspect they are just shipped over for the simple aim of exploitation in pursuit the tourist dollar.

Where have these elephants come from?

It's about time that Thailand faced up to its abuses of animal rights.

it is about time that tourists educated themselves on animal abuse before coming to destinations like Thailand.

Rule of thumb -= if you can ride it, it's being exploited.

This is Thailand we are talking about. Human rights are barely passable so what makes you think wild animals have any chance.

I say the ownership is on the tourist. They ride at their own risk. When there is no money in taming and enslaving wild animals then the trade will stop. Otherwise it's business as usual regardless how many incidents/deaths occur.

[sawadee1947]

Concerning "Kipling: you are not quite right. (it's never too late to learn)

Real Mahouts (the name comes from Hindi) you can find still in India. And - they spend their whole life with their elephants - even NOWADAYS. The reason for this is that most of the elephants we saw belong to the government. And the government can pay for their soldiers (!). They treat "their" elephants like "friends" and care for them as friends. Some stay even at night with them. But this is today unusual though.

So Kiplings picture is still alive. Somehow. Somewhere. (Attached a photo)

I always assumed elephants would be a common sight in India, but there are only a few places in the country where you can really see them (and ride them), and Jaipur is one of them.

I just don't think you understand the significance of my use of the name Kipling. He was an imperialist who wrote extensively about India in "glowing" and poetic terms - one of things he did was glorify some of the humbler working people.

In reality this image is distorted - and it appears you accept this distortion. Being a mahout used to be a common job in India - NOWADYS irit is not. Furthermore the relationship depicted by writers like Kipling is not necessarily true.

The reality is that being a mahout involved - and still involves - a mixture of folklore, superstition and a little bit of practicality.....but little or no science....or appreciation of the natural behaviour of an elephant.

It has always involved breaking in practices that are frankly barbaric and cruel beyond belief it also has a way of dealing with musth that seems unbelievably cruel - they starve and deliberately dehydrate the animals - this has been shown to shorten the musth, but causes hu=ge distress to the animal.

Being a "mahout" - even a traditional long-term one - doesn't guarantee or imply that the elephant is being treated well - in fact it still involves inflicting pain every day as a form of dominance and discipline....in India all in the name of ceremony.

..and while you're at it check out the number f elephants Hannibal used - it will put matters in perspective

Man, your quotes makes me laugh. You are very smart. You answer just because you want to be RIGHT even you are not. You can't accept if anybody got a different point of view or a different opinion.

I don't know you but I suppose you had a miserable life or still have it now.

The only satisfaction you will have is writing smart quotes. I reckon you live alone, do you? No friends?

But anyway, enjoy your day with a healthy glass of mineral water.

[pbonline]

According to the Telegraph and The Guardian, the daughter said her father didn't tease the elephant.

It´s always the falangs fault, just come up with a story and thats it.

[djlest]

my sister was on an elephant trek when the elephant slipped over and crushed her, she had major surgery and cant walk properly now.
Elephant treks and playing in the river with elephants is very dangerous, these animals look docile but when they flip they kill.
There should be a BAN on elephant treks and TIGERS - both of these animals are being used to make money, both are being drugged and abused to push them farther.
Both animals require a LOT of food, and should not be captive

[freedom4life]

Elephants rarely act-out like this unless provoked...sorry but I have very little compassion. Most elephants in Thailand are being exploited..for what else?...money.

[cumgranosalum]

Very sad.

Elephants on Samui? Really? When would an island have an elephant population? Was there logging there?I suspect they are just shipped over for the simple aim of exploitation in pursuit the tourist dollar.

Where have these elephants come from?

It's about time that Thailand faced up to its abuses of animal rights.

it is about time that tourists educated themselves on animal abuse before coming to destinations like Thailand.

Rule of thumb -= if you can ride it, it's being exploited.

This is Thailand we are talking about. Human rights are barely passable so what makes you think wild animals have any chance.

I say the ownership is on the tourist. They ride at their own risk. When there is no money in taming and enslaving wild animals then the trade will stop. Otherwise it's business as usual regardless how many incidents/deaths occur.

i'm sorry but I don't think you have actually read my posts on this.

firstly " Human rights are barely passable so what makes you think wild animals have any chance." - you don't seem aware that apart from being a false dichotomy I haven't touched on "their chances" anywhere. I"m not even sure were you think you are going with this statement.

then you say "ownership" is on the tourist? this doesn't make any sense ...did you mean the "onus" is on the tourist? The responsability? If so I would say that I agree tourists should shoulder at least some of the responsibility, but one must not overlook the methods and cruelty engaged in by the keepers and owners to maximise profits.

you do however touch on the ramifications of the tourist trade as it fuels demand for NEW elephants - babies from the wild or bred in captivity ...none of which is desirable and of course it is all interwoven with the illegal snuggling of elephant s and the slaughter of adults for ivory.

to bring the exploitation to an end, it requires more than identifying just one aspect of the problem - it needs attacking on all sides....this is been done in Thailand but as yet not that effectively by some. Tragic incidents like this do at least serve to bring home the issues to a largwr public.

Edited February 2, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[gandalf12]

...never heard of an elephant going crazy because .....'it was teased with a banana'......

...also seems that there are 2 versions of what happened.....

...sorry for the daughter and her father.....

...I cannot see how they can suggest the riders were at fault.....

Easy they were / are foreigners and did something stupid at least that will be the verdict.

[gandalf12]

Elephants rarely act-out like this unless provoked...sorry but I have very little compassion. Most elephants in Thailand are being exploited..for what else?...money.

When you have people going to the temples and praying for the lottery numbers what else can you expect? Money is the ultimate prize for the people.

[cumgranosalum]

Elephants rarely act-out like this unless provoked...sorry but I have very little compassion. Most elephants in Thailand are being exploited..for what else?...money.

Nonsense - most elephant attacks are completely without explanation.

[cumgranosalum]

Concerning "Kipling: you are not quite right. (it's never too late to learn)

Real Mahouts (the name comes from Hindi) you can find still in India. And - they spend their whole life with their elephants - even NOWADAYS. The reason for this is that most of the elephants we saw belong to the government. And the government can pay for their soldiers (!). They treat "their" elephants like "friends" and care for them as friends. Some stay even at night with them. But this is today unusual though.

So Kiplings picture is still alive. Somehow. Somewhere. (Attached a photo)

I always assumed elephants would be a common sight in India, but there are only a few places in the country where you can really see them (and ride them), and Jaipur is one of them.

I just don't think you understand the significance of my use of the name Kipling. He was an imperialist who wrote extensively about India in "glowing" and poetic terms - one of things he did was glorify some of the humbler working people.

In reality this image is distorted - and it appears you accept this distortion. Being a mahout used to be a common job in India - NOWADYS irit is not. Furthermore the relationship depicted by writers like Kipling is not necessarily true.

The reality is that being a mahout involved - and still involves - a mixture of folklore, superstition and a little bit of practicality.....but little or no science....or appreciation of the natural behaviour of an elephant.

It has always involved breaking in practices that are frankly barbaric and cruel beyond belief it also has a way of dealing with musth that seems unbelievably cruel - they starve and deliberately dehydrate the animals - this has been shown to shorten the musth, but causes hu=ge distress to the animal.

Being a "mahout" - even a traditional long-term one - doesn't guarantee or imply that the elephant is being treated well - in fact it still involves inflicting pain every day as a form of dominance and discipline....in India all in the name of ceremony.

..and while you're at it check out the number f elephants Hannibal used - it will put matters in perspective

Man, your quotes makes me laugh. You are very smart. You answer just because you want to be RIGHT even you are not. You can't accept if anybody got a different point of view or a different opinion.

I don't know you but I suppose you had a miserable life or still have it now.

The only satisfaction you will have is writing smart quotes. I reckon you live alone, do you? No friends?

But anyway, enjoy your day with a healthy glass of mineral water.

i think that post says more about you than me........

If you have a problem with anything ipost please, feel free to put forward a coherent argument against - an ad hominem attack just doesn't cut the mustard.....

[JHolmesJr]

If the thais could change the headline it would read

"Scottish man killed by banana"

[MrTee]

RIP Gareth - such a sad story..

Once again Thai press falsely blaming a tourist for trouble.

I've always thought Elephants should be left to their own space and not used for entertainment