Steve Feltham has created a bit of a stir in the media by suggesting that the Loch Ness Monster could be a Wels Catfish. Some newspapers were suggesting that Steve would now bow out of monster hunting, as if the mystery had finally been solved.
That won't happen and as Steve suggested, the theory is fluid and could be ditched by him the next day. Steve has toyed with this idea for years now and this is not the first time he has been (mis)quoted on this theory.
Some have suggested the idea of a Wels catfish going back ten years or more, but the idea goes back before any such people were born and is parallel with the start of the Nessie story in 1933-1934. Rupert T. Gould mentions catfish in his 1934 book, "The Loch Ness Monster and Others", ascribing it to Dr. A. Van Veldhuizen, Professor of Theology at Groningen, who was no doubt familiar with the Silurus Glanis of the Danube River.
Gould's comment is stark when he says this is "another example of a theory entirely divorced from the evidence". It seems with this theory, the skeptics have relaxed their demands on physical evidence. As it turns out, there is as much evidence for catfish in Loch Ness as there is for plesiosauri in Loch Ness.
By a strange coincidence, I visited the aquarium in Copehagen as the catfish theory was circulating the media websites. Their Wels Catfish was sharing a tank with that other Nessie candidate, the Atlantic Sturgeon. I captured this photograph of them both together, though the light level was low and the catfish was decidedly inanimate. The smaller sturgeon is swimming above the catfish.
Now either the aquarium administrators were fleet of foot on new news or they had their own view on Nessie as the display beside the fish said:
The Wels Catfish is one of the world's largest fresh water fish. It can be up to 5 metres in length and weigh up to 300 kg. Due to its size, it has been identified as the Loch Ness Monster.
Every fish has its day, but for me, this is not the Loch Ness Monster.
While I am on Nessie related stuff at this aquarium, I noted they were selling clockwork submarines. I was tempted to buy one and recreate a famous Nessie photograph. The box says "Good Clean Fun". Try telling that to the Loch Ness Monster community!
The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com
Its possible a big fish could account for nessie sightings. Though a lack of a dorsal seen is a problem. Thats my 'un'scientific view :)) lol
ReplyDeleteLack of a neck is a bit of a problem as well...
ReplyDeleteThere used to be millions of Sturgeon in the Hudson River right up to Albany. Nobody ever mentioned them being confused with a sea serpent. In the Trinity River there are tons of Alligator Gars and never any mention of Nessy like creatures. Wels catfish are all over Europe and even in the streams at Chernobyl, and no mention ever of long necked creatures there either. My conclusion is that they are not readily mistakable for the descriptions given of "long necks."
ReplyDeleteWell i was referring to what we are told is the most common sighting.... a single hump :)
ReplyDeleteIt is strange that the skeptics seem to relax their demands when known species are mentioned. The "no tooth, no claw, no skin" brigade seem strangely silent when it comes to no physical evidence for any wels catfish in Loch Ness.
ReplyDeleteThey will probably claim its because we're only talking about a few catfish and not a breeding colony. That still doesn't explain why nothing has been seen.
Expect the elastoplast to come into force as various excuses are made such as "they all died before sonar came to the loch", etc.
Inconsistency, thy name is skepticism.
What is more likely is that any theoretical catfish introduced into Loch Ness would not survive long and would certainly not attain monster proportions.
It could be that a catfish has been caught at Loch Ness but it was not mentioned to the press because it is a known animal. The captor may not have seen it as a big deal. It's not quite like reeling in a plesiosaur is it? Catfish are caught every day in Britain. I see a 94lb record one was just landed.
DeleteI have done an initial search of the newspaper archives with no match on catfish, but more work needs to be done there.
DeleteIn general, I would expect any big catches to get a mention in the local newspapers. After all, we have regular reports of other big catches such as sturgeons, eels and ribbon fish.
But you can't say that every time a big eel is caught it is always reported can you? There will have been many unreported captures.
DeleteOf course not, but you are not surely using that as part of an argument that Wels Catfish inhabit(ed) Loch Ness?
DeleteSince catfish were not indigenous to the Highlands, I would all the more expect the capture of one to be more newsworthy.
Catfish are not indigenous to the whole of the uk. Hundreds are caught every month. It's not a big deal to catch a catfish n the uk so it's very easy to picture one or two having been caught in a Scottish lake without it hitting the headlines.
DeleteSteve F is correct in his assessment, it's definitely the most likely candidate for many of the sightings. The neck ones - driftwood, birds, otters, deer, seals.
Not much left of the whole Nessie story.
That's not easy to picture at all based on the long hours I spent perusing old highland newspapers for my book.
DeleteWhay are you so willing to accept this theory without the usual demands for physical proof? Double standards?
As for necks, give me a break! If witnesses were so easily fooled by birds and deer, you may as well just palm off their hump sightings with waves and logs.
You sceptics really overdo it with these simplistic explanations.
Did your Highland newspaper search reveal every big fish ever caught in Scotland? I somehow doubt it. The difference between catfish and long necked crazy critters as a viable possibility is that catfish actually exist and are in lakes in this country. It's not a dead cert that catfish are in loch ness but it's something close to infinity times more likely than the monster Glasgow Boy dreams of.
DeleteThe Wels catfish theory has many problems, even by LNM standards. First, we would have to find evidence for the idea the loch was seeded in the 1800s with Wels catfish as Steve suspects. Second, we'd have to reconcile it with land sightings and neck and head sightings. If it is a Wels catfish, explaining all those sightings is problematic. Third, we'd have to reconcile it with all the estimates of speed for whatever folks are seeing in the loch. Steve's own lone sighting describes something large and dark surging through the water "like a torpedo." As far as I can tell from a cursory glance at the extensive catfish swimming literature the regular size ones can surge for short distances at a max speed of about 15 mph. Would a Wels be faster or slower? Interesting stuff but for me the theory offers more problems than solutions.
DeleteThe populating of lochs with catfish needs more research, Michael. I see nothing on follow up as to where, how many and success rates.
DeleteAnonymous person, according to you guys we've got all kinds in Loch Ness; catfish, sturgeon, greenland shark, walruses, leatherback turtles, etc.
DeleteWhere do you get off? If it's big enough, we'll just toss it in the loch so long as it gets rid of that other theory y'all hate. That's real critical thinking!
Glasgow Boy that was about as logical as someone accusing believers of thinking a wide variety of monsters exist in Loch Ness on the basis that there are multiple monster theories.
DeleteIllogical!
Of course not. My point was sceptics seems to blindly accept every anti-Nessie theory put to them.
DeleteExcuse me! This sceptic certainly doesn't blindly accept anything.
DeleteThat includes very feeble "eyewitness testimony".
Well, stop being as slipperly as a landed Nessie and tell me what sceptical theories you do not ascribe to.
DeleteAh, those feeble, dimwitted, inexperienced, stupid, unlearned, excitable, impressionable eyewitnesses.
Not one has ever described accurately what they saw ... according to the sceptics who require every one of these testimonies to be binned.
The lady doth protest too much.
Correct, every single one of them was either mistaken or lied. The ZERO photographic and film evidence shows us all that.
DeleteAnd underneath it all you know it too Roland.
Typical bluster from a sceptic.
DeleteHigh on dogmatic, arrogant decrees.
Low on backing up what they say.
And a bit of emotional ad hominem to top it off when the logic begins to dry up.
There is many a time I reply to sceptical arguments with counter arguments. The response is usually to
a. Ignore it and continually repeat the discredited argument
2. Deflect into some unrelated area
3. The discussion grinds into stalemate (i.e. they fail to win the argument).
Happens all the time.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the Scottish Highlands are home to several newspaper reports of 'giant eels' and 'hairy eels' supposedly found in firths and lochs. I recall reading about one which the local fisherman claimed must have 'come down from Loch Ness', and which assuredly not very eel-like in its physical description. It supposedly had huge fins which were intermittently raised up and under which a six-man paddle boat could pass. I can't recall any stories about giant catfish, but am happy to be corrected.
The elephant in the room here, it seems to me, is that if one or more enormous catfish can occasionally enter the loch and leave no physical trace (but, rather, a rash of sightings of humps, washes and wakes), then why can't something else? This may be something known (such as a pinniped) or something unknown (such as an unidentified large sea creature, of which several are still thought to be waiting to become known to science, according to statisticians).
I've never been a proponent of the loch harbouring a breeding population of unknown creatures - in fact, it stretches credulity to believe that a whole slew of Scottish lochs are each home to families of predators, and none have been identified in any. However, there is enough eyewitness evidence to suggest to me that unknown, large, long-necked sea creatures (and the waters around Britain are rife with sightings of 'Nessie-alikes') may traverse the rivers feeding Scotland's Highland lochs for reasons unknown. Sighting 'flaps' may well coincide with these occasional visits (or strandings).
Yes, the traveller theory is perfectly arguable. My only quibble is not the means of getting in and out but the fact that sightings seem regular enough to suggest a more permanent resident(s).
DeleteI would think that the traveler modus operandi is a little tenuous, for the reason that getting through the locks at either end and shallow rivers, by a large creature, without being spotted would be very difficult indeed and the fact that I don't ever recall a report of a sighting at any river leading to the loch. Besides, are all the locks at one end ever left open for any extended period of time?
DeleteSeals do it and I am not sure how often they are spotted.
DeleteOK, seals, but I had in mind a large animal of the Nessie type, in the 20-30 ft range.
DeleteI think anything larger than a seal would be spotted in the locks if it were using them regularly. So it would have to be using the River Ness. Should we be thinking of crowdfunding some webcams (regular and night vision) to cover one of the weirs?
DeleteDavid, I think we can rule out the canal locks, so its down to the river Ness more than the southern river Oich. I don't see an issue with the LNM getting thru the route (and some postulate it may be done as a juvenile for migratory reasons).
DeleteIt's all down to how often this could happen (every 5 years?), when (night/day?), river conditions (spate?) and so on. I like the traveller theory, but ti could be synthesised with the resident population theory to provide a firmer hypothesis.
Just took a look at the River Ness via Google Earth and yes, it would be the best possible entry point. As it is devoid of locks. The only obstacles would be the few weirs. Would a Nessie be “smart” enough to crawl on land to bypass them, I wonder? GB you posted an article awhile back on the traveler theory, and at that time I commented just that idea and under the cover of darkness, but that sounds too simplistic.
DeleteLarge seals seen at a distance where it's difficult to judge size could account for many of the sightings which on the face of it seem much too big to be seals, John Alvarado.
DeleteIs it just me, or have all these sightings of humps, necks etc pretty much dried up over the last few years? Never hear of anything anymore.
DeleteIt is just you.The media won't really print anything without a picture.
DeleteHow could seals account for "many of the sightings" when seals are rarely in the loch?
DeleteSeals spotted in the narrowness of the River Ness and seen from a distance, would still look small. Seals are fast, frolicking agile swimmers diving and sometimes jetting clear of the water. In addition, seals don't cruise on the surface displaying a hump or a long neck.
DeleteHow do you know seals are rarely in the loch? Because they're rarely seen?
DeleteWell, so is the LNM.
Seems like skewed logic to me,
Glasgow Boy you can't blame the media for thinking that way. We all have phones these days so there's no reason not to expect a photo to accompany the story.
DeleteFrom one of your own beloved sceptical websites, Sherlock!
Delete"Fishermen's reports indicate that Loch Ness is visited by a seal approximately once every two years"
See
http://lochnessinvestigation.com/SILN.html
"We all have phones these days so there's no reason not to expect a photo to accompany the story."
DeleteI refer the reader to a previous article.
http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/concerning-mobile-phone-cameras.html
Once every 2 years could easily mean they account for 'many' LNM sightings then Sherlock, given the frequency of reported sightings these days,
DeleteThe others being accounted for my waves, otters, deer and other natural phenomena.
How often is the loch visited by monsters then Sherlock?
I'm Watson, you're Sherlock. Time to put you to work.
DeleteGoing by the link above there was a seal in Loch Ness between Nov 1984 and June 1985. Tell me about the sightings which were logged as Nessie (not seal) sightings due to this creature.
BTW, I am not discounting the possibility of some sightings being misidentified as seals. It is the notion that they account for "many of the sightings" which is overkill.
DeleteThere aren't many so called Nessie sightings so seals could account for a high percentage.
DeleteReally? Get back to your homework I set you!
Delete(or is this another "anonymous" faceless one?)
As I said a week ago:
Delete"Going by the link above there was a seal in Loch Ness between Nov 1984 and June 1985. Tell me about the sightings which were logged as Nessie (not seal) sightings due to this creature."
What's your answer?
Good (UK) site here about the Wels catfish. Clicking on the 'Waters/selecting UK map locations' shows no information of introduction to the Scottish Highlands.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.catfishconservationgroup.co.uk/welscatfish/
Daz
http://www.catfishing-uk.com/history-and-distribution/
DeleteThis suggests unconfirmed reports in two Scottish lakes. This is the kind of scenario under discussion.
More information, please.
DeleteRoland if you think nessie has a neck how does this fit in with your amphibious fish ?
ReplyDeleteGood question. I am one of those Nessie-philes who does not tend to think of this appendage as a classical skeletal neck.
DeleteI view it as some kind of extension/proboscis which may or may not have a mouth. Only a few fish display an external extension. The angler fish springs to mind, though I doubt the LNM's adaption has the same function.
Interesting theory. What do you base it on?
DeleteCareful GB, you'll get some thinking it's a giant catfish proboscis with teeth and eyes! :-)
DeleteIt's a developing theory.
Deletehttp://lochnessmystery.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/what-is-nessie-long-neck-problem.html
Sceptics all jumping on the Wels Catfish theory. Lol. That's it, the games up. A 30 foot, 3 humped dorsal finless fish that can walk on land.
ReplyDeleteI'd rather see that than a Plesiosaur ;)
Yes Jake. Show us the photos of anything 30ft in loch ness and on the surrounding land and you'll have a reason for your post.
DeleteHow about the Gray, MacNab and Cockrell pictures for starters? There are others, but of course you don't accept these.
DeleteYour request for a picture of Nessie on land betrays a lack of knowledge on the subject.
Gray: blurred mess
DeleteMacNab: too enormous to be seriously considered. Macnab known to have been dishonest.
Cockrell: a stick.
Crap.
DeleteHave i spoke ???? Lol the obsession is getting too much. Get over it boyz ha ha xx :)))
ReplyDeleteOff subject a bit, but does anyone remember and know the title of the Loch Ness documentary which was shown on UK TV around either 1994, 95 or 96?. Also, does anyone know where this programme can be found online?. From memory, the names of people featured in this (around 1 hr in length) doc where:
ReplyDeleteSteve Feltham
Alastair Boyd and David Martin: Boyd talks about his feelings re the surgeons photo and he came to learn about the alleged "fake photo"; he then uses a toy model with a Nessie head to show how its possible to fake. He briefly mentions a sighting he had where, after the creature had submerged, the water was flat calm.
Adrian Shine
A marine biologist from Lancaster University: talks about the ecology of Loch Ness, but then the tables turn when the interviewer asks the biologist about whether he has found Nessie, to which he replies (in a comical tone and pointing to a cartoon drawing of Nessie) "only on this on this", but after further questioning the biologist refuses to talk and walks out of shot.
Dick Raynor (borrowed or archived footage in the 70s)
Some French experimental artist on a boat on the loch chanting and beating drums, according to the narrator, he was trying to summon Nessie to the surface.
Tim Dinsdale (archive footage)
Various eyewitnesses describe their sightings
A father and son describing their recent sighting. They were on the hills overlooking Loch Ness looking for deer when they saw an unusual wake. They took video and stills.
Ian Cameron: eye witness Ian Cameron is shown recounting his sighting with a friend in the 1960s, with a brief b/w clip of him and his friend in the 1960s giving their testimony. In this documentary he describes how he fishing and spotted what he thought looked like an upturned boat (a large black mass in his words). The animal then moved up the loch and Ian and his friend went up to the next maybe. He also notes that there were other people on the opposite side of the loch who had seen the same thing. The author, Ted Holiday was mentioned as being one of the eyewitnesses.
I think the programme mayve been narrated by Mark Halliley, who narrates many TV shows on documentaries, inc The Apprentice. If it's not him it certainly sounds very similar to him.
Would be grateful if anyone can shed any light on this. I can't find any reference to this documentary on sites like imdb. I'm sure someone here will know which one I'm talking about/
I think I know the documentary you're referring to, I've seen it. Can't remember the name, sorry. You seem to know the details pretty good. Can't remember if it was on a VHS I borrowed from the library or YouTube. Try searching YouTube. I'll look, if I find it I'll post a link. Meanwhile, back on topic, here's Steve Feltham being interviewed on Sky News on his Wels Catfish theory.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8ExyNOTh78
I remember that documentary and it was no earlier than 1996. I can say that for sure because I watched it on TV at a place I lived from 96 to 98.
DeleteThe tone of the documentary was slightly mocking, but generally quite balanced. Overall it was probably another tiny nail in the coffin of the mystery. Another of many documentaries which show the conundrum of the eyewitness reports versus the science and facts. As ever, the science wins in this documentary, but the viewer is left intrigued by what people are saying they saw, albeit in wildly varying and contradictory reports.
This documentary is on YouTube. If I find it again I will post a link.
Thanks John and Nicola, much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI do now have a feeling it was no earlier than 96. I don't really think it was mocking the subject that much, from what I can recall it was quite a well produced programme and absent of the typical mickey taking that a lot of Nessie docs seem to be about these days.
I do remember seeing on YouTube a few years ago (think it was in its entirety), but I've since looked but can't find it. I've typed all kinds of words to search for it, but still can't find it, even the narrator's credits of work doesn't include it (assuming it is the person I'm thinking of). I know there was a documentary shown on either BBC or channel around 2000, in it a researcher from the states comes to Loch Ness to show why he thinks the surgeons photo is genuine (Robert Rines is featured throughout). However, its certainly not that one I'm referring to. I can remember a lot of it because I had it on tape from the time it was shown and used to watch a lot.
Loch Ness locals have something that looked like a large, partially submerged log, but the locals themselves s have never reported a Plesiosaur type “monster” (except as part of hoax). The photos depicting the typical long-necked beasties have largely been discredited or dismissed. Desperate logic dictates an extremely rare “fresh water” subspecies of the Greenland shark. These would have had to evolve from such sharks being trapped in the loch the last time it had deep water connections to the sea at the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago (doubtful).
ReplyDelete