Question on elephants going berserk

I think you would have to be more specific. I don't know elephants closely, but "a rampage" could be defined rather widely, and it would be different whether the rampage was the trampling of a field of some crop, or if the beast trampled a crowd of people.

It will certainly vary by country and according to a lot of other factors. For example an escaped zoo elephant America is likely to be physically recaptured if humans are not endangered, if humans are immediately endangered the animal will be shot dead, if the animal is moving towards a place with humans but not there yet sedation may be attempted. Sedation is not immediate and often has a short term excitation effect and so is not as useful as it might seem. Also an unconscious elephant is very hard to move.

"Going berserk" is parlance from the very old circus days when shows would keep bulls, parade them through town even when in musth, use harsh training etc. In those days an elephant was far more valuable than any human worker and many killed multiple times and kept being used. These days bulls do not travel and are kept in very secure facilities. Outside of a natural disaster or deliberate vandalism any kind of unruly elephant on the loose scenario is hard to imagine.

Is the elephant worth a lot of money?

josephperin said:

If there is an elephant which goes on a rampage, what happens to it after the episode is done?

Let's say it has been sedated and is now quiet. What happens next?

Will the animal be put to death? Does it vary from country to country?

Click to expand...

It varies by incident - what happened, where, why.

josephperin said:

Elephant character trampled a man to death.. Beast is now calm.

Click to expand...

Dead people tend to be pretty calm. Same questions - what, where, why.

What time period is this? Who owns the elephant? That will have to factor into your scenario as well.

That is a legal question. Assuming family of the deceased etc want the animal euthanized, google dangerous animal legislation for that area.

Take a look at the story of Tabasco Cat -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabasco_Cat

Tabasco Cat came very, very close to killing Jeff Lucas. Tabasco Cat was also one hell of a race horse. And Tabasco Cat was one mean horse, with a major reputation for being a danger. Jeff Lucas was not the first person Tabasco Cat injured nor the last. And Tabasco Cat did not improve when he went to stud. Numerous thoughts were entertained on separating Tabasco Cat from his balls, but his value as a breeding and racing horse made it worth putting up with him.

I would assume that in India an elephant is classified as "livestock" and the decision of the owner is final.

Friend of mine had a bull that got a bit uppity. The bull was delicious for dinner.

Only real legal issue of livestock with dangerous propensities is making sure people are warned of the animal and reasonable measure are taken to protect people that aren't working with the animal. Other than that, you can go any way you want with this story.

Jim Clark-Dawe

josephperin said:

Modern times in India.

Elephant was owned by someone as a 'pet.' Went insane during fireworks display. Trampled a bystander to death.

It was sedated. It calmed down. Does the animal have to be put down?

Click to expand...

I don't know if Indian law could order that, but it seems like something you could check.

If the owner was rich enough to keep and feed an elephant, if he didn't want it killed, I imagine he could afford to relocate the elephant, perhaps put up a bond to ensure that it's kept confined. Possibly bribe someone?

frimble3 said:

If the owner was rich enough to keep and feed an elephant, if he didn't want it killed, I imagine he could afford to relocate the elephant, perhaps put up a bond to ensure that it's kept confined. Possibly bribe someone?

Click to expand...

This.
I would think it depends greatly on who the owner is. What outcome do you want?

If India uses the English model for the laws here --

Animals fall into three groups -- pets such as dogs, livestock such as horses and cattle, and wild animals. Roughly speaking, where the differences are between the animals is what level of care you need to use in restraining an animal. Absent a local ordinance, I can let my dog wander loose. My cow I have to use reasonable care to prevent it from wandering. And wild animals that escape will find the owner strictly liable for the animal, even if the owner uses reasonable care in restraining the animal.

If an animal escapes the control of its owner, and has never shown any dangerous propensities, liability is determined as above. If the animal has shown dangerous propensities, i.e., the one bite rule, the owner is going to have to show that with the knowledge of that dangerous propensity, the owner took reasonable care in restraining the animal.

Animals are property, the same as a car. No one can tell the owner what to do with an animal, even if the animal is dangerous, other than through a court hearing and/or local ordinances. A court in determining whether to put down a dangerous animal will look at what the owner is doing to avoid the animal injuring other humans and/or causing property damage. The more attacks an animal has made, the harder this becomes.

The only difference the size of the animal makes is how much protection is needed to restrain the animal. A pet cobra snake needs different restraints than an elephant, but legally, the principles involved are the same.

My guess is that India treats elephants that have been kept by humans for a while to be livestock rather than wild animals.
My further guess is that elephants are very valuable animals, worth a significant sum. It would be up to the owner. One approach here would be moving the elephant to a safer area.

My book has an entire chapter on dangerous propensities. Liability is the big legal issue and putting down an animal much less of an issue. Many dangerous animals are kept and describes every zoo. But it is not unusual for livestock to be dangerous.

Jim Clark-Dawe