Previously Unknown Land Sighting of Nessie

Occasionally as I research the subject of the Loch Ness Monster, the odd shiny piece turns up in the dross. I was in the National Library of Scotland recently and was perusing some old Scottish publications in search of new Nessie information.

Amongst other items, I reserved some copies of the Scots Magazine from 1990 for the reason that a land sighting of Nessie from 1932 had been featured in the June issue by a Colonel Fordyce. That particular sighting is already known to cryptozoologists but another one turned up in a later issue. My reasoning for this action being that when the Fordyce article was published it may have elicited a response in the "Letters to the Editor" page at a later date.

And so it was that a letter appeared subsequently in the August issue from the Reverend G. Mackenzie of West Chiltington, West Sussex. He was not the witness to this event, but he recounts how he was an Oxford Undergraduate between 1928 and 1931 and had been invited by his tutor with some other Scots to an evening with the Right Reverend Sir David Hunter Blair. The significance to us is that Sir David (pictured below) was once the Abbot of Fort Augustus Abbey on the shores of Loch Ness. At some point in the conversation, he was asked if he had seen the Loch Ness Monster. His answer was "no" but he said that one of his monks had seen it emerge from the woods and enter the waters of the loch. The Reverend Mackenzie adds no further details other than the description offered by Colonel Fordyce sounded very much the same as what he was told the monk saw. So ends our brief but interesting story.


What can we make of it? Firstly, my list of land sightings adds up to thirty three and this one was not in it. I am not aware of it being in the Loch Ness literature and so it looks like a new story and swells the ranks to thirty four alleged land encounters with Nessie. Rev Mackenzie's address was given in the letter but given the information in it, he would be aged about 100 years now and I suspect he is no longer with us.

Secondly, his letter implies that they were talking about the creature between 1928 and 1931. However, the monster did not become international news until 1933. One might presume an error was made in the date of the meeting, but since this blog believes that the Loch Ness Water Horse was known to locals (and monks) prior to 1933, we have no problem with this. It transpires that David Hunter Blair was abbot of the Abbey between 1912 and 1917 which suggests the event may have happened between those years. However, one cannot be certain of this.

Thirdly, a monk was claimed as the witness. Now this is the type of witness beloved of Nessie books. Someone regarded as honest, upright and not as likely to fabricate an account. For this reason, reports by clergy, policemen and other respected vocations are often held up above other sighting reports. This is quite reasonable as such people have more to lose if caught lying (though this does not preclude the idea that they misidentified an object as Nessie). So we quite like the fact that a monk was the stated witness (and told by another cleric - Sir David Hunter Blair).

Fourthly, we have the brief account itself. The story itself is not unique in its tenor, we have several accounts of large beasts with long necks and bulky bodies waddling/lumbering out of bushes in front of witnesses and then proceeding to disappear into the deep waters of Loch Ness. Where it may differ is in how Rev. Mackenzie says the description sounded "very much the same" as the Fordyce episode which describes an animal with a long neck, small head, humped back but with hair and hooved feet. Which parts of this strange Nessie description tallies with the monk's encounter we cannot tell. They may only agree in the long neck, small head and humped back of general Nessie lore but then again the hairy hide and hooves may have a part. So therein lies a mystery within a mystery.

Looking at a map of the area around Fort Augustus Abbey suggests a likely place for the encounter. The Abbey is at the mouth of the River Tarff (which was discussed in a previous blog). At this point there is a wooded area across the river from the Abbey and this looks the likely spot from which the creature emerged from the trees. Speculating, "x" would mark a possible place of the witness and the circled area is the forest where the creature may have emerged from in his view. Curiously, this proposed place of encounter cannot be more than a few hundred yards north of the land sighting of the beast reported by Margaret Munro in 1936.



But did our astonished monk rather misidentify what he saw? Could he have merely seen a deer or otter enter the water? Now I may be going out on a limb here, but I would have thought that a resident of the shores of Loch Ness would not have a problem knowing a deer or an otter when they saw one. Yet we are asked to believe that witnesses to such events do indeed fail to recognise known animals for something quite frankly astonishingly different. Methinks this is special pleading but then again such people would retort that suggesting the monk saw an extraordinary creature is also special pleading.

Pick your conclusion according to your prejudices, I say.

We would also note that this monk may have seen his creature prior to the media frenzy of 1933. Skeptics of Nessie have this theory that once a person enters the environs of Loch Ness they undergo a temporary metamorphosis which warps their perception of reality and they begin to see monsters where there are none. Once they are somewhere near Inverness, their brains are handed back to them and normal service is resumed. But as for local residents such as monks, had they undergone a permanent disabling of their mental faculties? I would not think so and their testimonies need to be given due weight.

Interestingly, Sir Hunter Blair wrote an article for the Catholic newspaper "Universe" in January 1934 which hints from its title that the monk's experience was not forgotten:

THE ELUSIVE MONSTER OF LOCH NESS - WHY IT MAY BE CAPABLE OF LIVING ON LAND OR IN WATER

Let me say at once that by the above heading I do not intend for a moment to imply that I entertain the slightest doubt as to the real and objective existence of a strange and unknown beast in the profundity of the great loch which I have known intimately for more than half a century. Elusive he is and must be, as long as it remains unpredictable when or where he will make his appearance in the length and breadth of the vast sheet of water which is his habitat. But during the autumn weeks which I spent at Fort Augustus, and still more as a result of correspondence since, I became and remain absolutely convinced, on the testimony of a veritable cloud of credible eyewitnesses, which it would be absurd us well as unreasonable to flout or to ignore, that this weird and mysterious creature does really and truly haunt these deep waters, not as a casual visitor, but as a resident — of how longstanding who can say.

Since the Editor of the 'Universe' asked me to write this short paper, I have thought it well to confirm -the impression, or rather conviction, which I formed a few months ago by communicating with a member of the Fort Augustus community, who enjoys a high and just repute as one intimately acquainted with the habits, language, and folklore of the West Highlands, and also as an antiquarian and archaeologist of high attainments.

I asked for a concise answer to several questions, the first being, has the monster been actually seen by any members of the Benedictine Community? ''Yes," he replies, "by four or five (whom he names) independently and on different occasions; also by several of the employees and workmen attached to the Abbey. Two of the elder boys of the Abbey School, and also a clerical student, had likewise seen it". Two of the most, remarkable witnesses are first, an ex-engineer captain of the Royal Navy resident at Fort Augustus, a man of high ability, training, and experience, who himself saw the animal and who has been for months past collecting and sifting all the evidence on the subject; and, secondly, the owner of Invergarry (the old home of the Macdonnels), who was suddenly converted from entire scepticism by watching (with his daughter) the creature's revolutions and gyrations in the loch for a continuous period of 40 minutes.

It is perfectly obvious, from the letters of my learned correspondent at Fort Augustus, that he brushes aside as puerile and untenable the absurd theories which has been put forward as to this mysterious visitor to, or rather resident in, Loch Ness being either a grampus, a lizard, a conger eel, a sea serpent, an upturned boat, an inflated rubber bag, or a lump of seaweed!

All of which he being a sensible man, dismisses (to use Disraeli's memorable phrase) as merely 'the hare-brained chatterings of irresponsible frivolity.' What my friend maintains, after carefully weighing all the available evidence, and giving much thought to the subject, is, briefly, that this strange amphibian belongs to the far-back, but post-glacial period, when the great chain of lakes, Loch Ness, Loch Lochy, and Loch Oich of Scotland, were still connected with the sea. These denizens of the deep waters have in the course of ages become fresh water, not salt water, amphibians. This particular specimen, having been (according to the generally accepted theory) disturbed by the recent extensive blastings in connection with the road making around Loch Ness, found its way to the surface, and in the continuous sunshine of the past summer, took a fancy to the upper world, which it apparently still retains, though the summer is long over.

My correspondent believes the animal, on all the evidence, to approximate to the type of the Plesiosaurus. Let me record my own belief that it is a true amphibian, capable of living either on land or in water, furnished with lungs as well as gills, with four rudimentary legs or paddles, an extraordinarily flexible neck, broad shoulders, and a strong, broad, flat tail, capable of violently churning up the water round, it. I hazard the conjecture that it belongs to no existing species, but to the Devonian period, oldest but one in the history of the world, and dating back some hundreds of millions of years.

I have little doubt that Hunter Blair's contact at the Abbey was Father Cyril Dieckhoff - enthusiastic researcher of Nessie. The retired Royal navy captain was possibly Captain Donald Munro who also was a monster hunter.

But Mr Hunter Blair believed the creature to be amphibious and quite capable of being at home in water or land. Hence there is no surprise that this mysterious creature was seen lumbering out of a wooded area.

Our final enquiry would be why the Loch Ness Monster is drawn to venture into forest before returning to its aquatic home? Does it seek food on land? There are not many reasons why a brute beast would take to land apart from food, shelter and reproduction. One can speculate endlessly as to which one (or any) may be relevant to this creature.

One may even add the musings of the aforementioned Colonel Fordyce at the top of this article who suggested the monster could even be a land creature hidden in the Moidart Mountains to the east of Loch Ness, which spends its time between hill and loch in uncertain proportions!

Curiouser and curiouser ....

The Other Loch Ness

When you arrive at Loch Ness, just make sure you are on the correct continent. Apparently there is another Loch Ness but this one is in the USA and unlike its famous counterpart, this one is not likely to be familiar to anyone beyond Minneapolis in the state of Minnesota.

Residing to the north of the city beside Lochness Park, the locals evidently could not bring themselves to call an American body of water a "loch" and hence its full title "Lochness Lake". A zoom on Google Maps reveals its environs.

Now they will have to believe you when you say there is a Walmart beside Lochness. Unlike its 26 mile long and 750 feet deep Scottish counterpart, Lochness Lake is a mere 16 feet deep and covers only 14 acres. But apparently the fishing is good with sunfish and pike.

The only mystery is why they called it Lochness Lake? Did a Highland community set up here after the clearances and decide to rename local places after the old homeland? Perhaps they did, but if you turn the loch on its side, another reason may be forthcoming!

Follow Up on the Latest Sonar Contact

Following on from the initial post, I was reading through various email/website/forum talk and the emphasis was very much on the skeptical side of the debate. But that is no surprise since most people do not think there is a large, unidentified creature in Loch Ness and so any story like this is going to lead to "natural" explanations.

Of course, there may be a natural explanation, I would not be so fanatical as to class every story as "monster". Where I diverge is in my view that not all sightings are explained by natural phenomenon.

As it turns out the favoured explanation is a submerged log. It's a theory and it sounds plausible and most people would accept that without any further critical thinking and move on to the next thing. I prefer to persist with some critical thinking.

Aside from the rather important question as to whether a submerged piece of tree debris could produce the strength of such a sonar trace, there are some other things to consider.

One skeptical forum summed it up (link here):

"Page 61 of Radford and Nickell’s Lake Monster Mysteries. Jerry Monk, a British hydrographic surveyor notes that when a piece of wood is immersed in water, over time, it sinks. If there is a thermocline, it is possible for the log to float in mid-water on the denser layer of cold water. Or, the log may sink, decay and form methane, which makes it rise again. The log idea, sinking and rising, degassing and sinking again was used to explain the Mansi sighting on Lake Champlain."

The thermocline is an area below the loch surface where the temperature drops rapidly creating a kind of partition between the upper and lower layers of water. For Loch Ness, it is usually stated to be at a depth of 40 meters but could vary between 30m and 60m depending on the season. Interestingly, the thermocline can be seen on sonar scans as well, which leads to the question as to why it is not visible on this particular scan if it is claimed to be buoying up the supposed piece of tree.

This is an open question since it may be a matter of sonar calibration and sensitivity but it does suggest that the "log" (which is 25 metres below the surface) is well above the thermocline.

Note that the quote mentions that the theoretical log would "float" on the thermocline. However, this target is moving at such a speed that the trace soon disappears off the screen. Can underwater currents achieve this rapidity? Yet another open question which suggests a log would tend to drift rather than speed.

Finally, the quote mentions vertical ascent and descent of a log due to water saturation and then gassification and renewed buoyancy from methane gas decay. Aside from the fact that the object moved horizontally, such a scenario is unlikely at Loch Ness. Decay of organic matter happens at very slow rates at the bottom and indeed tests have shown little gas production to stimulate ascent.

At this point, I have tried to contact the witness for his view on the matter and whether the tree debris he has seen in the past matches this. I suspect the answer would be "No". For me, talking to witnesses is important - unlike too many a number of critics who completely disregard verbal testimony (unless to find inconsistencies to discredit them)!

Another "natural" explanation often put forward are echo effects from sonar beams bouncing off the sides and bottom of the loch. These do produce strange effects such as vertical lines but it is unclear whether they would be capable of producing the trace in question and from the moored, stationary position he was at. Regular users of sonar equipment would be able to recognise such a pattern.

Other causes of unusual patterns are boat wakes. However, this would require a boat to pass fairly close by and again would be recognisable to a regular user (though as with side echoes it is unclear that they could even produce the pattern in question).

The Latest Nessie Sonar Contact

They just keep coming thick and fast these Nessie stories. On the back of two intriguing photographs these past four months and a head-neck sighting, a sonar contact has entered the fray.

This story appeared in the Scottish edition of the Daily Mail for Thursday 15th September 2011. It looks like it did not make the UK website of the Mail, so it is reproduced here for those outside of Scotland.

But first the basics on sonar. I do not claim to be an expert but it is an important tool in the hunt for the Loch Ness Monster. However, like normal photographs and pictures, there are degrees of interpretation, misidentification and, yes, hoaxes.

A sonar contact is a picture made from sound waves instead of light waves. The sonar device sends pulses of sound at various frequencies depending on how deep one wants to go. The reflected echo is processed to form a snapshot of the area within the sound beam.

However, being a continuous series of pulses, the sonar picture is more like a film than photograph and each successive echo builds a trail of images as the targets in the beam move. In fact, one could argue it is more like a picture taken with a very long time exposure.

So if an object is moving it will describe a trail of some shape and thickness. This thickness is not the girth or height of the whole object but whatever returns the strongest echo. This depends not on the size of the animal (for example) but the difference in density between the water and the object. In the case of the fish, the greatest density difference is between the swimbladder and the water since it contain much less dense air (or some other gases). The rest of the fish is closer to the density of water than the swimbladder. In the case of mammals and reptiles, one main area of interest would be the lungs.

The Daily Mail story now follows.

THERE is no sign of the trademark elongated neck, or the signature green humps. But the experts believe this almost unfathomable sonar image could be a breakthrough in the hint for Nessie that began in earnest in 1934.

Surrounded by fish, the ‘blip’ has a girth of about 5ft, though there is no way of estimating its length as it was moving. The image was captured by the quick thinking skipper of a pleasure boat who took a picture of the reading while waiting for his customers at Urquhart Castle, in Inverness-shire. Marcus Atkinson, 42, knows Loch Ness like the back of his hand and spends every day on its waters — but said he had never seen anything like this before.

He added: It's very weird. It was obvious it wasn‘t a shoal of fish and it just kept getting bigger and bigger. This thing is completely different from anything I've seen before.’ Mr Atkinson, of Fort Augustus, Inverness-shire, was idling in the bay when he saw the unusual sonar image. He said: ‘it's one of those moments where you just think, “What on earth is that?" I grabbed my mobile phone and took a picture before it disappeared of the screen. it's all very bizarre.‘ Mr Atkinson's picture shows a cross-section of the loch, with the boat itself at the top right of the picture.

The bright green area on the bottom right of the sonar screen is the bottom of the loch, which rises as the boat gets closer to shore. The small green flashes scattered across the monitor are deepwater fish. But the part of the picture that is exciting interest is the long, thin streak - that looks a little bit like a propeller - between the 20 and 25 metre depth markers. The measurements show it is about 5ft thick - but there is no way of telling how long it is as, if the object was following the boat, it would show up on every ‘blip’ of the sonar.


Expert Nessie hunter Steve Feltham said: ‘This is a sonar contact that defies all explanation — it's a huge object. ‘it’s fascinating, because the camera hasn't an imagination — it just shows what's there.’

So ends the account and I wrap this latest sighting with some comments. The first is that the captions editor makes a howler in comparing the elongated pattern to a sleek, lithe plesiosaur. If they had read the article, they would have gone for a different picture for (as said in the intro) this is a trace built up over a succession of sonar pulses.

The other observation is that the stated 5ft girth is not necessarily the complete height of the object because if it is an animal, it will be the lungs or swimbladder being measured. But then, five feet of lung or bouyancy organs points to one big creature.

I presume the five feet measure is taken by comparing it to the 20-25 metre depth scale in the picture above. Using my trusty ruler, I get an average estimate of 2.5 feet "girth" which is still quite a measurement. I would add that if this was Nessie and we assume a true girth twice as much as my measurement (i.e. giving us five feet) and apply classic Nessie proportions based on numerous eyewitness tesimonies and analysis, then a total tail tip to head length would come out as about 30 to 35 feet - which is a typical Nessie size.

So what was it with a minimum girth of 2.5 feet that was moving at a depth of about 70 feet? No doubt some will have a rational, non-Nessie explanation for this odd signal. Was it some human artefact somehow floating at a great depth? Was it a strange effect of sonar bouncing of the underwater sides of Loch Ness? Or was it the famous and mysterious denizen of Loch Ness?

As for us, this goes into our log of claimed Nessie sightings.

ERRATA: I just remembered "girth" is the measurement around an object as opposed to its thickness. So assuming a circular type girth, a rough girth estimate given a thickness of 5ft would be Pi x 5ft which is roughly 16ft.

Follow up on the Jon Rowe Nessie Photograph

Having initially posted the media's words on the latest Nessie report, I contacted the witness himself for clarification. It is always desirable to do this as newspaper reports may omit something important or misquote. Also, when various people critique the report publicly, the witness' reaction to this can also be educational.

As it happened, some things did have to be corrected. Firstly, the time of the reported sighting was 1230 and not 0830. This may seem a minor point, but since the time of day can often be easily deduced from shadows if a photograph is taken, then doubt is cast upon the witness if the reported time and photograph time are in conflict. In this case, the reported time was wrong.

Secondly and more importantly, the two hump like objects are not all there is to this sighting. In fact, if the witness report is read without reference to the picture, it is evident that Mr. Rowe saw a large, dark object moving just under the surface of the water. The two smaller objects are a sideshow in that respect. To quote from the Daily Mail:

"There was a rainbow so I got my camera out to take a photo and noticed this really large dark shape in the loch with two humps that were barely out of the water."

The dark shape was under the water, the humps (or perhaps bumps) briefly above. In fact, when I saw the photo, I saw this shadowy area centre bottom and asked Mr. Rowe if this was relevant to the sighting. His reply was:

"Yes, the shadow beneath the "humps" details the rest of the mass moving through the water."

I invite readers to look again and note the semi-elliptical shadow at the centre of the bottom of the photograph. In fact, Mr. Rowe described the experience of being near this large object as "very unnerving". This is not a wave shadow as the sun is directly ahead in the picture and the wave just to the right has no such shadow. In fact, on the higher resolution picture that Mr. Rowe provided, it looks as if the waves from the westerly wind are shallower and washing over something rough with contours perpendicular to them.

As for birds and seals, Jon is not convinced for one simple reason, the entire object he saw moving underwater and partially above was much bigger than anything he was accustomed to seeing, in fact 2 or 3 boats in length.

We can only guess as to what kind of animal would form the shadowy shape below, but what about those two small "bumps"? In that sense, we are in the area of speculation and can only guess. However, given the distance from the main shadow, one may speculate that this may be the head region slightly surfacing. Could these "bumps" be horns of some description? We know that witnesses in the past have described horns, though such events are a small proportion of the record and they tend to be stalk like. Zooming in on the objects just deepens the mystery - they certainly are not birds in the act of a bottoms up dive as no tail feathers or legs are visible.

An intriguing photograph which adds to the mystery of the Loch Ness Monster.

Latest Nessie Sighting?

Jon Rowe claimed to have spotted two humps in the water on the 7th September (story below).

(Also updated for Daily Mail coverage at end)

Long time Loch Ness researcher Adrian Shine thinks it may be a pair of birds diving for fish. The question I need to know is really how long did the witness watch this spectacle? If nothing came back up after a long enough time, then the bird explanation is unlikely. In fact since Mr. Rowe says "It wasn’t up for a long long time" then one wonders how it could be birds (unless they decided to drown and sink!).

Mr. Rowe's statement about a "really large dark shape" makes one wonder whether two birds could fulfill such a description. There is also the question of why this person who works as a fish farmer on the loch could fail to identify two birds local to the area?

However, the photograph itself needs some clarification. The two white dots I can see in no way suggest a large dark shape. There is however a large dark shadow bottom centre - so where exactly does one focus their attention and is this photograph uncropped to begin with?

This is a black throated diver pictured below. A quick check on their habits suggests they only submerge for half a minute or so. A bit hard to reconcile with a "really large dark shape" but there you go ...

Original story from Inverness Courier here.

'Nessie' spotted going for a dive

By Rosemary Lowne

A FISH farmer could not believe his eyes when two unexplained ‘Nessie-like’ humps appeared from below the surface of Loch Ness.

Jon Rowe, from Lewiston in Drumnadrochit, was working at Dores Fish Farm when he decided to take a picture of a stunning rainbow.

However, after taking the picture, something unusual caught Mr Rowe’s eye.

"It wasn’t up for a long long time," said 31-year-old Mr Rowe. "It was a really large dark shape and I’ve not seen anything like that on Loch Ness before."

Asked if he believes it was the elusive Loch Ness Monster, Mr Rowe said it is a possibility as he does not believe it was a buoy or a mooring as it is in the wrong place and ropes would be visible in the water.

"I think it’s interesting, that’s how I take it and I would like the photo to be checked," said Mr Rowe, who took his snap on Wednesday at 8.30am.

However, Adrian Shine, from the Loch Ness Project based in the Loch Ness Centre in Drumnadrochit, cast his expert eye on the picture along with his colleague Dick Raynor.

He believes one possible explanation for the photo could be that it was two black throated diver birds captured diving for prey or emerging after a dive."It’s an interesting picture," said Mr Shine. "My colleague Dick is a skipper at Urquhart Bay and last week he spotted two black throated divers which are quite big and they have white undersides which you can see in the picture," said Mr Shine.

Previously there have been two possible sightings of the Loch Ness monster with white undersides.

But Mr Shine said if the birds were diving, which they often do in pairs, then it would explain their disappearance beneath the surface of the water.

"If it was one object with two humps and it dives, you would not see two undersides.

"You couldn't have one object with two humps having two bits of underside."

Mr Shine explained that the birds often dive in pairs

The Daily Mail has added its story here:

It's been said before and it's being said again .. Nessie is alive under the waves of Loch Ness.

Once more the notoriously shy Loch Ness monster has been reportedly sighted in Scotland's deepest loch. This time close to a commercial fish farm.

Jon Rowe, from nearby Lewiston in Drumnadrochit, took the eerie snaps moments before the mysterious shape slipped beneath the water.

And the stunned fish farmer is convinced that the shapes he saw in the morning light are Nessie.

He said: 'It was a very strange morning. It was misty with a bit of rain and sunny at the same time.

'There was a rainbow so I got my camera out to take a photo and noticed this really large dark shape in the loch with two humps that were barely out of the water.

'My instant reaction was "That's Nessie".'

Mr Rowe has dismissed claims that the shapes he saw in the water were not the legendary beast of the deep said to stalk the atmospheric Highland loch.

He added: 'I have no doubt, I work on the loch everyday and I've never seen anything like it.

'Almost as soon as I took the shot the shape disappeared under the water and out of sight.

The 31-year-old told how he had not believed that a monster swam the depths of Loch Ness until he captured Nessie on film.

'It can't have been a buoy or a mooring as it's in the wrong place and the ropes would be visible in the water.

'A few people have said it was birds diving under the water - but I didn't see any birds fly by. It can't have been birds - the whole thing went down into the loch.

'It was quite spooky but I think it's really interesting.

The Daily Mail also provides this zoomed in photograph below:

Mr. Rowe answers one question and that is that he does not think the two humps were birds because they disappeared under the water. As I said above, birds tend to come back up. That does not mean we immediately say "Loch Ness Monster" but then again, the alternatives are diminishing.

Loch Tarff

In my new book, I explore the various "satellite" lochs around Loch Ness which had traditions of water horses, water bulls and kelpies. I recently covered one such body of water in Loch Duntelchaig (link) but another caught my eye as I drove past it on my summer trip to Loch Ness. I did not cover this loch in the book mainly because no written tradition exists - unless you are prepared to dig a bit deeper.

I am speaking of Loch Tarff which is on the south side of Loch Ness. You encounter it as you head north to Foyers on the B862. Having ascended the steepest incline around Loch Ness, you head downhill to a dip and the loch is on the left. I took this picture at the time.

There is nothing to recommend the mysterious about it apart from that general gloominess which descends on such lonely places under cloud. It was apparently used as a skating rink by the boys of Fort Augustus Abbey's school in decades past but not much more can be said about it apart from its name. The word "tarff" is a transliteration of the gaelic word "tarbh" meaning bull. This has significance because place names often have something to say about the place itself. In this instance I suggest that this place had a tradition of a water bull inhabiting its shallow depths (as other authors have suggested for "tarf" rivers or lochs).

Indeed, its maximum depth is about 90 feet (though the mean is 24 feet) and it is about 960 feet above sea level. Its dimensions are half a mile by about one third of a mile in a roughly triangular shape. Not a lot of space to sustain a Tarbh Uisge one may say but then again it is not alone in that attribute.

So I add it to the half dozen or so satellite kelpie lochs around Loch Ness. One final note concerns a river one encounters as they drive back down the hills to Fort Augustus. It is the similarly named River Tarff that empties into Borlum Bay beside Fort Augustus Abbey. This river begins its course further south in the Glendoe region and flows through Glen Tarff towards Loch Ness. The headwaters have been dammed to now form part of the Glendoe Reservoir for the Glendoe Hydro Power scheme. However, the waters of the river and loch Tarff are not directly connected.



One would presume that a river and loch of the same name and seperated by only a couple of miles would be related in folklore and perhaps they are but as yet I have found no evidence. It seems this small south eastern corner of Loch Ness has more of the Water Bull about it than the Water Horse. One wonders, did the local residents occasionally see the water bulls of Loch Ness head out of Loch Ness along this river and hence decided upon this name? After all, the River Ness and Garry are blocked by canal locks and other Loch Ness rivers rise quite steeply.

One can only speculate!