LAKE CONFUSION?
While it is one thing to suppose that there are probably many unknown animals swimming the worlds seas and oceans it is quite another to believe that long necked creatures be they plesiosaurs or pinnipeds, have taken up residence in lakes the world over becoming the culprits behind countless reports of lake monsters. We will discuss some of the reasons for this view presently.
The following chapter has been included more as an afterthought, rather than a part of the original plan for this work. This is mainly due to the fact that lake monster accounts have been covered much more comprehensively elsewhere and include reports of apparent unknown animals no matter how unrevealing. This type of approach will not benefit this present work as to illustrate the case for a long necked pinniped we need to have more precise information at hand.
There is no getting away from the fact however that long necked, unknown animals very similar to those that have been reported at sea have also been variously reported in lakes from around the world. This means that we now have a new set of variables and questions to answer not only with regard to their possible identity but also as to why if these reports are genuine they favour such places. For the sake of completeness then this chapter will try and take a logical approach to some of these questions.
The included accounts have been chosen not because they clearly seem to identify a mammalian culprit but because they reveal interesting features rather than a description of just “humps”, “bumps” or “upturned boats”, which may have some relevance to the present work. Unfortunately this does mean using a selective filtering of reports, which in turn will reduce the amount of accounts that can be presented. This may appear quite one sided to the reader but I make no apology for this. There are many other books out there to read on the subject, (see bibliography).
Everyone’s Favourite Monster
Many of the following accounts originate from Loch Ness, not so much because it sets a template for other lakes around the world but more because it allows ample opportunity to identify probable pitfalls with the whole idea of freshwater habitation. To avoid possible confusion I will mainly stick to a chronology of events and have followed Costello for most of the source material although I have used books by Witchell and Harris for further reference.
An early account that is generally believed to have taken place sometime in 1880 concerns an Eric Bright, who reported a sighting many years after it actually happened while he was on the Loch side near Drummadrochit. He apparently saw a large grey animal emerge from a wooded area waddle down a hillside on four short legs and then plunge into the water. He described it as having a long neck with a small head and it left a sizeable wake in the water as it swam off. Although he was only 9 years old at the time it obviously left a clear impression.
Sometime later, during the course of the First World War, a Mrs Cameron who was then a young girl, her two brothers and young sister saw a similar creature.
They were waiting for some friends, skimming stones on the water, when they heard a loud crackling in some trees on the other side of the little bay where they were playing. The crackling got nearer and nearer and they thought that something big must be moving. They were right. After a while a 20-foot long animal appeared moving like a “caterpillar”. As the thing was face onto them they could not distinguish whether the neck was long or short but discerned a body that was the colour of an elephant with a shiny looking skin. Under the creature they saw two short, round feet and as it entered the water it lurched to one side and dipped one foot in the water followed by the other (how dainty).
Half a decade later in 1923 a chauffer by the name of, Alfred Cruickshank was motoring
down the northern shore of the Loch. It was early morning and things were still a bit dark when he hit a bend in the road and his headlights picked out a large moving object ahead of him at a distance of about 50 yards. It had a large humped body about six feet high with its belly trailing on the ground and was about 12 feet long. A tail was present that appeared to match the length of the body making it something like 20 feet overall. It again waddled across the road using two visible legs and as it did so he made out the head of the creature, which was set right on the body with no apparent neck. The head gave the appearance of being “pug nosed” and he thought the overall colour was dark olive to khaki.
Although all convenient preludes it would still be some ten years before `Nessie` would explode onto the scene and go on to shape much future thinking and assumption with regard to lake monsters. Things of course really took off in the early thirties and 1933-4 were very good years to stake a claim to notoriety.
In 1933, the MacLennan family witnessed a strange creature in the loch. They had caught glimpses of the monster on a couple of occasions previously that same year. On this particular occasion Tom MacLennan was able to describe a 30-foot long animal, which gave the impression of having four flippers while his wife was able to view the front and rear end of the creature. It had a head that was held about three feet out of the water on a tapering neck, the head being little wider than this. On the back of the neck “hair” or “wool” was seen. The tail was apparently divided like a fish, which is slightly unusual, but Costello took this to mean that it was divided in two and hence was really the rear flippers of the creature rather than a bona fide tail. This appears to make good sense as otherwise we seem to have a new type of animal, a long necked fish which does not seem to have been described elsewhere. It is not clear how much “wool” or “hair” was present but this feature instantly brings to mind the mane sometimes reported in some sea serpent accounts.
So if we take on board Costello’s assertion of the tail, we have an animal that seems to match its sea going cousins. It is big, has a long neck and possibly a mane. Mrs MacLennan later went on to have a further strange encounter with a slightly different creature in August while she and her family were on a return journey across the Loch from church. She had wandered down to their boat on the shore of the Loch when she came upon a grey looking animal resting on a ledge about six feet above her. After shouting for her family the creature lurched and slithered off the ledge into the water. Her family therefore did not get to see the occurrence only some after disturbance in the water afterwards. She later described the beast as being hunched up, rear facing her with its head thrown back. Apparently 20-25 feet long it had short, thick clumsy legs with a kind of hoof like a pigs. This description was later revised and subsequently described as being more like a dinosaurs feet, cloven (?). It had lurched itself up on the two forelegs while the back legs stayed on the ground `seal wise`. There were no ears apparent and the back was ridged like an elephants. In her opinion the rear legs apparently did not look as if they could support the animal because it slithered along the ledge and into the water like a seal. She did comment however that it must have climbed “like a monkey” to get to its position on the ledge which does not quite tally with the obvious clumsiness that she attributes to it. There also appears to be no mention of a familiar long neck. A Mrs Reid, the wife of a local postmaster in December 1933, saw something smaller as she was motoring into Inverness. She caught sight of the animal about 100 yards distant, partly obscured by bracken. She was not definite about her description but thought that it had a thick hairy mane on its neck and generally seemed hairy. It was only 6-7 feet long and shaped like a hippopotamus, appearing to be a slow moving type of creature. It had a rounded head, short thick legs and was a very dark colour.
The next account concerns a very detailed and perhaps most revealing land sighting, which may give us more insight into what, we may be dealing with. According to Costello, the report was to some degree neglected due to the commotion that was being caused in the early thirties by the whole Loch Ness affair and occurred in January 1934.
Arthur Grant, a veterinary student was motorcycling from Inverness to Drummadrochit at about 1am. It was an overcast night but at the time of his encounter the moonlight had lit up the road in front of him. As he was riding he saw a dark object in some bushes to his right. As he approached this particular point in the road, something big bounded out in front of him. It managed to cross the road in two further bounds before vanishing into some bushes on the opposite side of the road by the loch shore. He later recounted that in those few seconds of confusion he got a pretty good look at whatever had appeared in front of him and went on to describe a long necked animal with oval shaped eyes on a small head which also possessed a 5-6 foot long, powerful looking tail. He estimated the total length of the creature at being approximately 15-20 feet, with his initial thought being that it was some sort of cross between a pinniped and a plesiosaur. He dismounted his motorcycle and proceeded to chase after the startling apparition making a note of where it had entered the loch with a great splash.
He was later able to give a more detailed description of what he had seen and described an animal with a head like a snake or eel that was flat on top, a large oval eye, longish neck and somewhat longer tail with the body being much thicker at the tail end. It was black or brown in colour and the head was about six feet off the ground at the end of a 3-4 foot neck. The tail he reckoned was 5-6 feet long and the overall size approached 20 feet. Luckily a party of students who happened to be on vacation at the Loch, who had also had their own sighting of two humps during their stay, were later able to acquaint themselves with Grant and spend some time with him at the location of his sighting. As a result they managed to ascertain some interesting further information.
After listening to Grant they managed to obtain a more exact description of the animals movement on land from the time that he saw it to its disappearance. It had apparently “loped” across the road using all four of its flippers, first putting down the front ones then arching its back and heaving the hind ones forward in the manner of a sea lion, the stomach not touching the ground. On closer examination of the sighting area, corresponding tracks were found that resembled “scrapes” or “skids” about 5 feet apart. One of the students a fellow in zoology later examined a collection of animals at the Royal Scottish Museum on his return to Edinburgh. He found that the track dimensions exactly fitted those that a fully-grown bull walrus would have left in similar circumstances. Grant had also managed to sketch the beast soon after his encounter and it was later redrawn showing a typical plesiosaur for Dr Ouedemans who was visiting the area hopeful that is theory would finally be justified. In Grants original sketch, which can be found in Costello’s book, such certainty was lacking and he appears to have been undecided with regard to the tail of the animal, not actually including one in his drawing. Costello again felt that the tail was not really a tail but the hind flippers, which had initially been stretched out by the creature before the encounter. These then became obscured in the commotion that followed.
Again a reasonable assumption, but in hindsight, for an animal that moves in such a precise way it is hard to understand how it would have managed to do this with such a long tail unless it kept it pointing upright during its movement like an otter.
On the face of it, if the animal had not had a long neck, a wandering tuskless walrus would seem to fit the description quite well. The walrus does move on land in the same fashion as a sea lion and does appear to travel widely. And one could not ask for a better description of the type of movement that it would make from Grants account. But there is that long neck.
Unfortunately this account may be somewhat tainted. Paul Harrison in his comprehensive guide to the Loch Ness mystery informs us that Grants report may have been part of a hoax portrayed in part by Grant in collusion with a self proclaimed big game and monster hunter one Marmaduke Wetherell. Wetherell who obtained backing from a national newspaper to hunt Nessie went about doing everything possible to show that she did in fact exist. He was involved in various publicity stunts and hoaxes and conveniently managed to find supporting evidence practically everywhere he looked. According to Harrison he did in fact accompany Grant the day after his encounter to the spot where it took place and began citing flattened shrubbery, footprints and even a dead goat as corroborating evidence. However in his book, Witchell mentions that Grant initially visited the scene with his family, being joined only later by Wetherell but it is this possible liaison, which has brought the account into question. Grant of course was a veterinary student and must have been familiar with seals and sea lions and the fact that the track marks found conveniently match a bull walrus and the precise method of reported movement on land could possibly indicate a hoax. On the other hand although the later drawing of his beast took on the familiarity of a plesiosaur it did not appear definite to begin with. He would have presumably been familiar with these too and could have made the account much more `classic` with regard to this in its nature, unless of course he had taken a fancy to a long necked seal idea via Ouedemans or Goulds books. Witchell goes on to state that as a result of the sighting and the ensuing ridicule Grant was exposed to, he was forced to miss a term at college. Probably not the best of starts to a potential carer as a vet.
Otherwise, away from the controversy, here is a report of an animal that looks a bit like a seal, moves like one and also meets the dimensions of at least one of its order. It also appears quite used to moving about on land, which is something that we will discuss in relation to lake monsters in more detail presently.
Grants creature based on his original sketch.
In February of the same year Jean MacDonald and Patricia Harvey, both girls at the time, described how under a full moon while walking along a road close to the town of Inchnacardoch they saw the fabled animal cross the road in front of them. They both described it as being 8-10 feet long with four feet and a head, which was about 6 feet off the ground. The body was thickest at the shoulder and tapered towards a tail. It was very dark in colour but white under the neck. The legs were very short and it moved rapidly and quietly in the direction of the Loch. A few months later in June Margaret Munro, a housemaid at Kilchumein Lodge watched an animal rolling on a shingle beach for about 25 minutes. Much of the body was clear of the water and it had a giraffe-like neck and absurdly small head for its body. Its colour was dark grey although again the chest was white. The skin was like an elephants and she saw two short forelegs or flippers. As she continued to watch, the animal kept turning itself in the sunshine and was seen to be able to arch its back into large humps. A sketch that she later made shows something similar to Grants although the hindquarters trail off into the water. This was then followed in July by an encounter made by Ian Matheson, who watched for about an hour as a beast emerged from the shallows of the Loch looking like a horse with five humps and with `the air of flippers`. He likened its movement to a worm wriggling. The five humps increased to twelve as the animal wriggled its way ashore and the head was noted to be smaller and thicker than a horses with the neck being “heavily maned”. The animal, which appeared to be feeding on some plants in the area by the shore was 30 feet long, not very thick and actually went on to shake the water from its mane as perhaps a terrestrial horse would do.
Much more recently in 1979 Donald MacKinnon claimed a sighting of a strange creature that appeared from a wooded area then proceeded to walk down to the Loch, slithering into the water. It was grey, about 24 feet long with four feet that had `three fingers` on each foot. Despite the gap in years, Nessie was still coming ashore for some reason.
Worth making a note of from these accounts are the very visible limbs, something that I shall comment on later.
The information gathered so far seems to describe two different types of animal. One appears to have a long neck while the other lacks it altogether. The movement on land also appears to show some discrepancy and at face value appears quite confusing. Or is it?
Some of the accounts that describe a dragging movement also include a tail, which could in fact be trailing hind limbs, very reminiscent of perhaps a phocid seal. Several of the accounts are vague about a long neck and the overall size of the animals in these accounts appears to be on the small side. So are these just accounts of a large wandering phocid? We have already learned that pinnipeds travel widely from their usual habitats and a possible candidate could be a juvenile bull or female elephant seal, which had possibly strayed many miles from its usual habitat (which as we have seen they do). Elephant seals are the largest of the pinnipeds and would match the sizes reported (see footnote). Then there is also the possibility of a tuskless walrus again a large animal, or maybe some other species of seal. If the reports of manes are to be believed though then it would have to be an alien one.
As we shall see later there is at least some evidence for the possibility of seals travelling in this way sometimes for a specific purpose.
Caught on the Hop?
A similar description of an apparent lake monster seen moving on land much like Grants, can be recounted next, this time originating in Ireland. It came to light after what appears to have been a photographic hoax, apparently portrayed in 1968.
A journalist was tasked with digging for some background information after a supposed picture of a dinosaur type animal had been taken at Glengarry or Sraheens Lough, which is situated on Achill Island off the coast of Co. Mayo., (incidentally Achill Island was renown in the past for various attractions including seal caves).
There had in fact been local tales of an unknown beast inhabiting the vicinity for some time before the incident took place. In the course of the reporters research he happened to interview a local 15 year old lad by the name of Gay Denver, who described to him an unusual encounter he had witnessed some 3 weeks before the picture was supposedly taken.
Mr Denver had been cycling home from mass and had dismounted his bicycle by the lake when he saw an animal about 50 yards away from the Lough which seemed to be “humping” itself along and climbing a nearby turf bank. It was bigger than a horse with a long and slender head like a sheep. It moved in a jumpy way like a kangaroo and had a long neck and tail. The hind legs were bigger than the front ones and it was about 12 feet long.
The `jumpy` way the animal moved is interesting, as it seems to indicate movement that may be close to Grants description and seems to indicate structured travel, especially if it were climbing. From the seal point of view this may have presented many problems for a phocid, but an otariid would find the going a lot easier and depending on how steep the bank was such an animal would need to lift its hind flippers after placing its fore runs perhaps in some motion that may appear to be kangaroo like. Denver does however report a tail, if that’s what it really was, but like Grants it seems hard to reconcile it with the movement described. If however rumours had been doing the rounds about some Irish `dinosaur` being seen locally, this may have influenced his description.
Like Costello who was not convinced about tails, I have to agree that such descriptions of such a distinguishing feature may occur simply due to the fact that the witness thinks they are seeing a plesiosaur, which most people are familiar with in shape.
Further south along the coast from Achill, lies Connemara. This area has long been linked with the fabled Irish `horse eels`, creatures that were described in the nineteenth century as resembling conger eels but with a head like a horse and matching mane. Rumours and sightings of such creatures have been made well into the twentieth century and although they do not quite match typical lake monsters in size and general appearance, being more otter or eel like, the reports come from an area that comprises many small pool like lakes which form a chain to the coast. Several expeditions to this area have been made in search of the elusive `horse eels` but have unfortunately not revealed any further clues to their possible identity.
There have also been persistent rumours of a semi mythical animal known as the dobha-chu, which is believed to be some form of large otter or `master otter` and it could be possible that such a creature may be responsible for many `horse eel` reports. Otters are notoriously elusive and a form of giant otter, such as those found in South America may well be a `monster`. In an excellent article discussing this possibility (see below), Gary Cunningham cites some convincing incidental evidence involving the possible survival of a prehistoric otter known as Potamotherium, albeit in a modern form.1 A similar animal has also been rumoured to reside in Scotland and certain aspects of an otters appearance would correlate quite well with some of the morphology attributed to the Loch Ness creatures (`white stripe`, long tail). Potamotherium was also more adapted to a life in the water than present day otters and would present another alternative to the plesiosaur identity for lake monsters. Unfortunately although a larger species could have evolved, Potamotherium was only about 5 feet in length and presumably lacked a mane.
It is also probably also worth remembering Howard St. Georges sighting off the coast of something more plesiosaur like.
I will revisit the subject of `horse eels` later with regard to the pinniped side of things but before we move on I will briefly include another unusual sighting of an animal seen in Connemara this time from Lough Skanaveer.
It occurred on a misty and rainy morning in 1944. A Mr Canning was walking down to the lake to fetch a pregnant mare. As he got near to where it was, the mare stood up and Mr Canning caught a glimpse of some animal circling the mare from behind. Canning initially thought that this was the foal, which had therefore already been born. As the `foal` was near to a small stream that flowed from the lake he was worried that it may fall in and drown so he began to approach it to ensure that this did not happen. As he got nearer however, the beast, which he thought was the foal, apparently detected his movement and promptly disappeared into the water. On reaching the scene he found that the horse had not in fact given birth (although a few days later she did), and after realising his mistake tried to reflect on what he had witnessed. When later interviewed about the encounter he stated that there had been some unusual things that he had noted about the foal like animal. In his words “ It was long…rather a bit high. It was black. The neck seemed a bit long…” He later claimed that the animal had ears and legs and circled the horse “gently”. When subsequently asked about the presence of a tail he stated that he had not seen one. He was convinced that it had not been an otter.
Swedish Odyssey
Jumping next (or should that be loping), to Sweden now, Costello also included some lake monster reports from Lake Storsjo, the deepest lake in Scandinavia, situated in central Sweden.
This appears to have been a good place for a monster as it even had its own little island with a runic stone supposed to protect the local inhabitants from a terrifying serpent which was depicted on it.
The mystery beast that inhabited this lake appears to have been the Swedish equivalent to Nessie in later years but the two reports that I will include both occur in the nineteenth century and should therefore be a bit more unbiased as to possible identity. Unfortunately though in the first account things will get slightly weirder.
In 1893 two girls who were both described locally as truthful, were washing their clothes in the lake when they saw a large animal swimming in the water, which proceeded to stop some distance in front of them. The head, which was large and round, rose and fell in the water for about half an hour while they watched. Short fins larger at the rear than the front could be seen and the animal had large sized eyes and two clipped looking things on the back of the neck. Its colour was grey with black spots. One of the girls decided to throw some stones at it, which made it start towards them and it was now that the girls, bless them, decided to flee. One ran to a nearby railway line while the other climbed up a tree.
Despite their obvious fright they were later able to give more details.
The head of the animal was round and like a dog with eyes as large as saucers. The mouth was open and a tongue could be seen flicking about inside. The eyes were 6-7cm apart (presumably converted to decimal form from the original report) and the head was 3 feet long and wide. The neck was 8-9 feet long and the back about fourteen. On the head were two big ears, which were laid back along the neck and there were two objects on the neck that could be extended and when the animal swam away its fore feet stroked the water.
Although we have the usual basic similarities to some of the other reports this one now adds some extending appendages on the neck, something new and rather strange.
Although some other sea serpent and lake monster reports allude to `horn like protuberances`, rarely snail like stalks and even neck appendages referred to as “frills” or “kippered herrings”, apart from Heuvelmans notion of snorkels, what the girls saw appears to be a unique attribute. However as there does not seem to be any creature aquatic or terrestrial that comes close to the description and the fact that the girls watched the thing for half an hour, a good length of time for observation, it would appear that there may still be a few surprises in store when dealing with apparently familiar lake monsters.
As a result of the encounter a Norwegian adventurer was brought in to bring the monster to heel, although all efforts proved fruitless.
Later in 1898 a newspaper researcher and five other people witnessed an animal about a kilometre from a house on the shore. It swam against the wind and turned allowing them to glimpse the belly and two fins. The body was about four feet high and about one and a half feet wide. The length may have been 4-5 metres the head and neck being one and a half, although the head was not raised fully out of the water. Mention was made of ears, which were white, and two feet apart above the water. The body was generally smooth but had warts on it in places being a sort of cinnamon colour, apparently slimy or scaly. There were green things hanging off its neck, which were described as either being a mane or waterweed. It quietly moved off and they observed it for a further half an hour before a steamer somewhere in the lake blew its horn at which the animal cocked up its ears appearing frightened and sank out of sight.
Now a kilometre seems a long way for witnesses to describe such detail which they also seem to contradict in their observations (slimy, scaly, smooth), but of interest to us are the ears which definitely seem to be ears as they react to sound. In fact a similar animal was reported on two further occasions both of which also described cocked ears.
Moose are common around many Swedish lakes and immature specimens, `in velvet`, may not be readily identified for what they really are. Speculation that the Storsjo beast and similar sightings are in fact just these animals swimming does hold some weight. But although the girls in the 1893 encounter probably made much more of their experience, they describe an 8-9 foot neck which appears a bit excessive for a Moose.
Fifteen years before the girls had their sighting, a local sawmill mechanic, Martin Olsson, witnessed something similar.3 He was fishing near the island lake, Forso, when he got the feeling that he was being watched. He looked behind him and saw a 6-foot snake like neck with a large disproportionate head on it. A hairy fringe hung down the animals back apparently stuck close to the neck due to wetness. It was a blackish rust colour with skin resembling that of a fish and had two humps in the water behind it. Moving cautiously Olsson decided to paddle away from the creature but he only got about 10 metres before it began to swim after him. He stopped rowing and the beast sat in the water staring at him for about five minutes. The strange creature eventually dropped beneath the water allowing Olsson to breathe a sigh of relief.
An interesting but very vague land report comes from Sweden’s neighbour Norway, in again 1893. It describes a strange beast seen for the last time in Fjoesvika. It took the form of a 15 metre black animal with long head and mane on its back. It was apparently witnessed moving from a forest and plunging into a nearby stretch of water. 4
Not to be outdone!
Europe and Scandinavia are of course not the only places to spy lake monsters.
North America over the years has become a veritable hot bed of such activity.
There are many lakes on the continent, which are reputedly inhabited by `monsters`, but in general descriptions of them tend to be less detailed than their English cousins. Again there are long standing elements of cultural superstition that tend to confuse things.
I will however include two reports from North America to represent their case but again the reader is recommended to view the bibliography section for further research. Both of the accounts originate from Bear Lake in Utah and I will not dwell on them too long as detail is sketchy and their could be other culprits ultimately behind them.
The first comes from 1868 when a head resembling that of a serpent was seen in the lake by some locals. It was covered with light brown fur like an otter and it seemed to have two observable flippers, which were compared to fishermen’s oars. Then in 1874 four fishermen saw what they thought at first was a large duck on the lake. When it got nearer however the face was seen to be covered with fur or short hair of “a light snuff colour”. The face was apparently flat, very wide between the eyes, which were very full and it had prominent ears like those of a horse but not as long. The whole head reminded them of a fox with the distance between the eyes being similar to that of a common cow. It apparently did not look ferocious and was not in any great hurry to leave the sight of the encounter.
A duck, a horse, a fox and a cow, a rather unusual combination by anyone’s standards.
Galloping Monsters?
Lastly it is worth including a report from Iceland, again a place with a rich folkloric history.
In 1984 two bird hunters on the shores of Lake Kleifervatn observed two amphibious monsters emerge from its waters. They were apparently black and quite horse like in their appearance although they were bigger than normal horses. After emerging they proceeded to cavort and frolic on the shore for an undisclosed period of time, moving like dogs, before returning once more to the depths of the lake. This report, maybe for good reason, has been brought into question due to the fact that some time after the encounter footprints taken to be those of the animals were supposedly found revealing cloven hooves.
Anyway if the account is true then we have two unusual and apparently merry creatures capable of gambolling about on land quite easily.
Pushing the Point?
Obviously there are many more accounts that could be included here but as the reader may appreciate things are from being clear cut when it comes to evidence for lake monsters. Perusal of more comprehensive information on this subject will probably help their case but hopefully the reader will see the significant similarities that can be made. Even from the small number of accounts that I have included some of these animals appear to look the same and share the same sort of physical characteristics and morphology, (an exception may be a monster from Lake Mendota known affectionately as `Bohzo`, who apparently gave a young girl a bit of a surprise in 1917 when it began to lick her foot underwater, before surfacing with a dragon like head and “friendly, humorous look in its eyes”.)
So the real question that we need to ask here then is why do very similar animals appear to inhabit different aquatic environments, are they the same species or are they different ones?
First up although many of these lakes are linked to the sea by rivers etc. they are enclosed environments so unless the animals behind these reports are adept at travelling over land, sometimes quite vast distances to get to them, or are smaller than commonly perceived allowing them to swim up connecting rivers and lakes undetected, then there must be breeding populations that exist or have existed in these bodies of water. This in itself poses a bit of a problem for both the plesiosaur and pinniped theories as no matter how much evolution may have potentially changed them, both animals would need to surface at regular intervals to breath thus surely making them more obvious in the process. If breeding populations do or did exist to account for their continued lineage over the years a number of animals must be present, again making long term concealment difficult to accept.
This rather thorny issue can possibly be countered by stating that the lakes in question are big places and that the creatures giving rise to the reports may simply periscope their heads and necks undetectably above the surface every now and then to take air. Also perhaps that evolution has allowed the development of a more advanced aquatic existence, reducing their need to rely on land or the surface of the water, which in turn helps them keep hidden.
However if for instance we take at face value the reports of such creatures seen on land, such as those at Loch Ness then such animals seem to need to come ashore for some purpose. Again this should make a breeding population much more conspicuous and would seem to indicate that they cannot have adapted that completely to an aquatic environment in the first place, QED.
In fact a few more reports from Loch Ness clearly seem to demonstrate this need for land excursion and seem to indicate that the creatures are more than capable of accomplishing it.
In 1933 a William MacGruer related to the Inverness Courier how five or six children under the age of ten had gone to hunt for birds nests along the shore circa 1912-1919. They had not gone far when they saw a queer looking creature emerge from some bushes and make for the loch. It reminded them of a camel although it was shorter but of the same colour, a sort of sandy yellow. It had a long neck, humped back and fairly long legs. Then in 1936 a Lieutenant–Colonel Guy Liddell wrote to the Times describing an account of the beast seen on shore related to him by a Mrs Peter Cameron, the warden of a local youth hostel. In 1919 when she was fifteen, she and her two young brothers on a sunny September day, saw an animal on a marshy shore “ loping” its shoulders and twisting its head from side to side. It too had a long neck, small head and four limbs, which along with its colour also reminded her of a camel.
Were there any escaped camels, slumming it at Loch Ness between 1912-1919?
In both these cases and most of the other Loch ness reports that I have included, definite limbs are reported which appear to be able to propel the animals in question, in some instances, fairly efficiently on land. This would seem to indicate that they obviously need to preserve this function for some reason. In fact if the Storsjo accounts are accurate which describe ears, then again it would seem to confirm the notion that they have not evolved too much for aquatic life as advanced marine mammals such as the cetaceans and phocids have lost their visible external ears making them more streamlined for swimming.
Why then if such amphibious creatures are truly confined to lakes have they not been caught?
Secondly there is the need to obtain sufficient quantities of food to support a breeding population if it is present. Loch Ness, arguably the most persistent and popular place for a long necked leviathan is actually quite barren on the food front as are many similar reputedly monster haunted lakes. Research in the early 1990s proposed that if a population of ten animals, enough to form a breeding colony, were living in Loch Ness then due to the relatively small volume of fish attainable, each animal would not be greater in size than 300 pounds, hardly the sort of size for a monster whether seal or plesiosaur.5
In fact there may only be certain times in the year, such as fish spawning seasons, when enough food to sustain the necessary populations would be available and unless the creatures were vegetarian the logistics for their continued existence just do not seem to add up.
The reader may argue that the sheer volume of reports from Loch Ness and other areas indicates that there are thriving populations, but before jumping to such conclusions we have to remember that not every hump cited as a monster may necessarily be one and we need to take into consideration the question of mistaken identities once more. This is no easier when dealing with isolated bodies of water.
With the exception of modern whales, sunfish and oarfish, which we can probably exclude, we still have known seals, deer, moose, elk, horses, sheep and cows and now otters. There are also very prehistoric looking sturgeon and eels to contend with both of which can attain large sizes and in the case of eels can actually move on land. If you combine these with the mythic, beautiful landscape surrounding such places the cultural mythology and perception of what a monster should be, numerous boat wakes, vegetable mats driftwood, seismic disturbance etc. we are surely asking for all sorts of descriptive trouble.
Exploited
An alternative solution to the premise of breeding populations, which seems slightly more reasonable to me, is that of exploitation. In this scenario such creatures do or have at least in the past, travelled inland to exploit food resources that are available at certain times. They are or were capable of traversing long distances by sea and land for this purpose. To me this makes more sense and here the long necked pinniped theory holds more weight, for today as they have done in the past, seals do exploit food sources in a similar way and can move overland for considerable distances. The late Dr Gordon R. Williamson, documented seal sightings at Loch Ness and in other Scottish Lochs.6 He quoted several instances of seals being seen in Loch Ness; one in 1933, two in 1934, four between 1972-1980 as well as an adult and 4 month old harbour seal in 1985. In fact for a seven-month period in 1984/5 a harbour seal (the same one?), took up residence in Loch Ness, the first documented incident of this nature. Whether it entered via the Caledonian Canal or overland is not clear. There had also been a sighting in 1895 from Loch Oich while further research also showed that Loch Shiel, Loch Hope and Loch Maree had also been frequented by seals in the 1980s, (five in L. Sheil). Although a hydroelectric Dam now blocks the river outlet in Loch Awe Williamson also included a brief quote from 1793, which told of how “The seal comes up from the ocean into Loch Awe in quest for salmon” and how in ten years up to 1883 seals were seen in the loch almost every year presumably doing just this. More recently in 2002 “Andre” an errant seal was actually awarded a fishing permit after he became trapped in the river Leven near Loch Lomond and began to take advantage of the salmon stocks available there.7
This means that seals were and are able to travel frequently into Highland Lochs and therefore some of these instances could quite easily explain reports of highland lake monsters. This also obviously ties in quite nicely with the possibility of inland exploitation. Seals are well known to take advantage of such food supplies. In fact “jail bars” which are 36ft tall and 12 feet wide have been erected at the entrances of fish passage structures in Bonneville in Oregon, USA recently. 8 The purpose of these is to prevent sea lions from devouring salmon. Rubber bullets and underwater fireworks had also been used as deterrents, but the sea lions have still managed to chow their way through 2,500 salmon, 4% of the total number of salmon that have reached the dam so far. One clever individual known as C-404 actually managed to push its 20 inch wide body through a 15 inch gap all the way to a fish counting window despite being shot three times with rubber bullets. In fact possibly as a result of this deterrent action sea lions have now been spotted many miles up a nearby river looking for food9.
So what happened at Loch Ness in 1933/4? Could some presently known pinnipeds have been using the Loch as a convenient stop off point? Did a known or possibly alien pinniped take residence in the Loch during the First World War or the early thirties? Or did an altogether different type of pinniped find such a journey beneficial?
Loch Ness is of course connected to other Lochs by the Caledonian Canal which also feeds into the sea and both Lake Storsjo and Lough Glengarry are both in areas which have tributaries at least providing some sea going entrance or exit
If we take Loch Ness, wrongly or rightly as an example for Lake Monster existence and the above reports from various places at face value, we can see similar challenges and discrepancies facing other such creatures in lakes the world over.
Obviously many of these lakes are much vaster than Loch ness and the concealment of large, unknown animals easier and there are probably other animals responsible in some cases both known and unknown. However in smaller lakes, unless we are dealing with some form eel or fish that has grown a long neck, evolving into an amphibian, making it glimpsed at the surface only rarely, there are significant problems and flaws associated with the long term presence of plesiosaurs and long necked pinnipeds in them. Unless of course they are just passing through.
If such creatures were but travellers to these places for whatever reason, then there is more scope for their continued elusiveness and why possibly today with so many man made hindrances, reports are less in number.
Such exploitation may have also offered further benefits for such animals and I will come back to this hypothesis later on in more detail and more explicitly, in relation to the Surreal Seal question.
1 The Loch Ness Story, Nicholas Witchell and The Encyclopaedia of the Loch Ness Monster, Paul Harrison (see bibliography).
2It would probably not be a mature male elephant seal as there is no evidence of a proboscis and we would have surely have heard about `horned` dinosaurs if this had been the case.
3 Richard Muirhead in an article for Animals and Men, issue 14, came across an interesting article concerning and animal that was caught in a trap in Slane, County Meath in 1869. It was the size of a good cat covered with long wiry hair. It had a sharp pointed snout like a weasels and a mouth that showed four “large tusks”, two facing up and two down. It had a small mane of dark brown hair down the whole length of its back and twelve toes or claws on each foot, seven on the outside and five on the inside. It was stouter than a cat and was dark brown with white on its breast. Was this a Dobhar -Chu?2
4 Cloven hooves and tracks that look like such have been linked with some descriptions and sightings of mysterious water creatures and are a bit of a mystery in themselves if the animals have evolved an aquatic existence.
6The exception with regard to the theory of exploitation in the cited examples however would be Bear Lake. Although it is connected to a river, the river actually flows into another lake The Great Salt Lake, which apart from being unable to support anything more than shrimp does not connect with the sea. As both lakes are in the heart of Utah any monsters would probably be better off trying to fly to the sea than struggling overland.
Electronic mail address
robert@cornes1.fsnet.co.uk
Web
address
http://www.cornes1.fsnet.co.uk