genetic
Honorary Master
Exactly! Stupid fekking tourist got too damn close, now the animal pays for their dumb actions.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is the ultimate French toast topping?
Elephant put down in KNP after attack
- Thread starter LazyLion
- Start date
Exactly! Stupid fekking tourist got too damn close, now the animal pays for their dumb actions.
genetic
Honorary Master
If they were in a Delta Motor Corporation of South Africa Opel Monza 160i GSi Car of the Year 1991, the elephant would have bowed down to them and let them do as they please.
thestaggy
Honorary Master
My folks were in the KnP two weeks ago. Upon entering the park they were given the usual wildlife/park pamphlet, but this time it carried warnings about the Elephants due to the males being in musth. They made it clear that the Elephants would be more dangerous than ever due to the males being highly agitated and aggressive and thus they encouraged people to keep their distance.
Stupid people are stupid.
Stupid people are stupid.
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
Elephant attack preventable: Expert
Two tourists could have avoided an attack by an elephant in the Kruger National Park if they had known how to read its body language, an animal behaviour expert has said.
Les Hes, a wildlife guide with 35 years' experience in reading animal behaviour, was speaking after watching video footage of the attack posted on the internet this week, a Sapa correspondent reported on Wednesday.
The tourists, Sarah Brooks and her South African-born fiance Jans de Klerk, who live in Spalding, in the UK, made headlines two weeks ago when the elephant attacked them near the N'waswitshaka waterhole, near Pretoriuskop, on December 30.
They were following the elephant along a dirt road when it turned around, flipped their car and pushed it several hundred metres into the bush.
Seconds before the attack, it briefly turned towards them, then carried on walking.
One of the elephant's tusks pierced the back of Brooks's thigh. She was airlifted to the Medi-Clinic hospital in Nelspruit, and was discharged on January 6.
The park decided to shoot the elephant, saying it had previously shown aggressive behaviour towards other elephants.
Hes believed the tourists had been driving too close to the bull elephant, but that they could still have escaped the dangerous situation.
"It is actually very tragic that they had to shoot this elephant because of some stupid tourists.... When watching the video, it's clear that this was definitely the fault of the tourists. These were probably people who had no knowledge of elephant behaviour, and driving right up the elephant's backside was an invasion of space," he said.
"When the elephant turns sideways, it's obvious that he is aggravated by the car and the tourists should have realised that they need to get out."
Hes said rising elephant populations in the Kruger National Park and an increased number of tourists visiting the park increased the likelihood of such attacks.
He advised people watching elephants to keep at least 15 metres away and to always have an escape route in mind.
"Read the animal's behaviour. There will always be a clear signal to let you know that he is aggressive," said Hes.
SA National Parks spokesman Ike Phaahla agreed that the couple had not kept a safe distance.
"Looking at the video, they followed the animal too closely, and when it turned, that's when they should have driven away."
He said it was difficult to reach a definitive conclusion without having been in the car with the couple.
Phaahla said that in the past, people had been banned from revisiting parks for reckless behaviour, but declined to say if this would apply to Brooks and De Klerk.
Source : Sapa /str/mjs/th/jk/cls
Date : 15 Jan 2014 15:55
Two tourists could have avoided an attack by an elephant in the Kruger National Park if they had known how to read its body language, an animal behaviour expert has said.
Les Hes, a wildlife guide with 35 years' experience in reading animal behaviour, was speaking after watching video footage of the attack posted on the internet this week, a Sapa correspondent reported on Wednesday.
The tourists, Sarah Brooks and her South African-born fiance Jans de Klerk, who live in Spalding, in the UK, made headlines two weeks ago when the elephant attacked them near the N'waswitshaka waterhole, near Pretoriuskop, on December 30.
They were following the elephant along a dirt road when it turned around, flipped their car and pushed it several hundred metres into the bush.
Seconds before the attack, it briefly turned towards them, then carried on walking.
One of the elephant's tusks pierced the back of Brooks's thigh. She was airlifted to the Medi-Clinic hospital in Nelspruit, and was discharged on January 6.
The park decided to shoot the elephant, saying it had previously shown aggressive behaviour towards other elephants.
Hes believed the tourists had been driving too close to the bull elephant, but that they could still have escaped the dangerous situation.
"It is actually very tragic that they had to shoot this elephant because of some stupid tourists.... When watching the video, it's clear that this was definitely the fault of the tourists. These were probably people who had no knowledge of elephant behaviour, and driving right up the elephant's backside was an invasion of space," he said.
"When the elephant turns sideways, it's obvious that he is aggravated by the car and the tourists should have realised that they need to get out."
Hes said rising elephant populations in the Kruger National Park and an increased number of tourists visiting the park increased the likelihood of such attacks.
He advised people watching elephants to keep at least 15 metres away and to always have an escape route in mind.
"Read the animal's behaviour. There will always be a clear signal to let you know that he is aggressive," said Hes.
SA National Parks spokesman Ike Phaahla agreed that the couple had not kept a safe distance.
"Looking at the video, they followed the animal too closely, and when it turned, that's when they should have driven away."
He said it was difficult to reach a definitive conclusion without having been in the car with the couple.
Phaahla said that in the past, people had been banned from revisiting parks for reckless behaviour, but declined to say if this would apply to Brooks and De Klerk.
Source : Sapa /str/mjs/th/jk/cls
Date : 15 Jan 2014 15:55
They didn't once reverse, so it's likely she was driving...
supersunbird
Honorary Master
From the video it looks like he attacked mainly from their left, so for her injuries to have occurred (stabbed by tusk in thigh) I think she was the passenger, not the driver. And you can hear the people the video saying the tusk went in while he was busy doing that.
/if I had been in the video makers car I would have hooted and tried to distract the elephant, but that's just brave/stupid me. Obviously I would have been ready to make a hasty retreat at a moments notice
ISP cash cow
Executive Member
@SS - was a joke...
I got it
But yeah stupid people are stupid. Putting the elephant down was just plain retarded.
I saw the video now. Ah dammit, those guys were playing with fire right there. They could have stopped immediately while they were far away from the elephant. Hell, I'm sure they could have reversed the car and left. Can't believe they put down the elephant for these dumb people 
supersunbird
Honorary Master
@SS - was a joke...
I know, I too find it strange that the man couldn't reverse.
supersunbird
Honorary Master
I saw the video now. Ah dammit, those guys were playing with fire right there. They could have stopped immediately while they were far away from the elephant. Hell, I'm sure they could have reversed the car and left. Can't believe they put down the elephant for these dumb people
Or they could have sped off while he was to their side.
HapticSimian
Honorary Master
I saw the video now. Ah dammit, those guys were playing with fire right there. They could have stopped immediately while they were far away from the elephant. Hell, I'm sure they could have reversed the car and left. Can't believe they put down the elephant for these dumb people
I still maintain that elephants are sometimes just ***holes, but having seen the video I can confirm, from life-long experience as occasional ***hole, that the people in the car were bigger ***holes in this instance. And yes, it doesn't seem reasonable that the animal was destroyed, but we must also concede that we do not know what past behaviour the Park might have based their decision on. Area rangers will know specific elephants by their tusks and the shape of their heads, and maybe, just maybe this was a justifiable last straw in this case. There's also the simple truth that the Park is dependent on the tourism revenue stream, and they must be seen to act in such situations. None of that is to say I'm sure their action was justified, but there is more to consider.
I really do think that the Kruger should be doing more than handing out a pamphlet to inform their visitors of the very real dangers posed by wild animals. There should be a mandatory orientation session for first-time visitors. Of the people with the means to visit Dark Africa I suspect Brits are some of the most likely to do daft things - it simply isn't in their frame of reference to consider animals dangerous. The worst they have to deal with are red foxes rummaging through their trash and the occasional rabid squirrel.
Further, people seen to unnecessarily disturb or actively taunt animals should face tangible sanctions. These morons should be fined, made to pay for the airlift evacuation, and banned for life.
Last edited:
waterprism
Expert Member
All of this.
thestaggy
Honorary Master
Wow, a bull elephant was aggressive. . . Captain Obvious to the rescue.
I got it
But yeah stupid people are stupid. Putting the elephant down was just plain retarded.
Word
Should have put them down instead.
I think the park did something because of the PR aspect. They probably ordered it so that they would be seen to be doing something - even if the actual ranger who had to take the shot disagreed with it.
I think the park did something because of the PR aspect. They probably ordered it so that they would be seen to be doing something - even if the actual ranger who had to take the shot disagreed with it.