Monday, 2 September 2019

Large eel like object in River Ness?





Something large seems to have passed by one of the underwater cameras that the Ness Fishery Board employs to monitor salmon runs. It has all the appearance of a large eel. It's a bit indistinct due to our helpful peaty water but it looks alive and big. Not quite a 30 footer but easily outsizes the salmon in the foreground which gives the impression of backing off from this object before moving back in.

Assuming this was taken at the weekend when we had a lot of rain and rivers were in high spate, something seems to have taken advantage of this high water level. I assume from the motion of particles in the water and the salmon that the flow is from left to right indicating Loch Ness is to the left and the Moray Firth to the right. In other words, this object is heading from the loch towards the sea.





The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com


49 comments:

  1. This is a quite large animal indeed. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somebody needs to interview that salmon before the sceptics tell it there was no need to back off, it was just a branch!

      Delete
  2. Well how about that 4 timing? We have just discussed the chance of big eels in the loch, now one has just popped up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well how about that 4 timing? We have just discussed the chance of big eels in the loch, now one has just popped up.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If the object is occupying the full length of the video window and that salmon is 60cm long, then the object is at least 2.4m long. It will longer because it is further away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meh, an eight foot plus eel. Yeah that's rare as eels go, but Iv'e seen pictures of close to that size fished out of other rivers and streams. If it's a long branch, well, I figure they're pretty common there at Loch Ness. ;)

      Delete
  5. Yes i was thinking if that salmon was closer to the object then the object is even bigger than when you first look at it.I think we are looking at a sizeable object here and longer than any other fish in the loch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I remember reading an article about Nessie being a giant eel only for it to be rebuffed because the author knew of eels "only" six foot long in the loch!

      Delete
  6. How can anyone know how big they get? I think it sums the author up.This is what we have to deal with sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hmmm, Neil Gemmell also tweeted this and reminds us of his press conference. Link?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cynical me says a definite link .
    With no natural predators in a loch it's not unreasonable to expect eels to grow and grow. I encountered six footers before in very small lakes.
    Certainly they could account for some sightings in Loch Ness.
    I'd like to know Neil Gemmels answer as to what could explain the Finlay sighting in 1952. If it's not an eel then it's unknown or the Finlays were fantasists and liars. Please tell us.
    In addition could the learned professor give us his opinion as to the 2003 photo taken through a car window and dealt with in an article on this blog.
    It's interesting that the professor hails from New Zealand where - as Roy provided the YouTube links in another article - very large eels can indeed he seen.

    ReplyDelete
  9. How deep is that part of the river?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am guessing 8-10 feet normally. Higher after rainfall.

      Delete
    2. It's a shame that it wasn't on the other cameras too!

      Delete
  10. Just as a matter of interest regarding large eel like creatures sightings....similar conditions were reported from Western Ireland when they were spotted . Two reports say they got trapped in culverts linking small lakes fed by rivers. Extremely heavy rainfall and the rivers were abnormally high. After one specimen couldn't free itself it was left to rot and the culvert eventually had to be replaced due to the damage.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Having only seen this story a few minutes ago I have only had a chance to apply the same rigorous measuring technique as Roland ... ie my eyes, and i come up with some slightly different wild guesses as to size of fish and depth of water.
    I would estimate that little fish to be about 8-10inches long, and the depth of water to be about 3 feet.
    Colin positions his camera by hand, he's hardly likely to place it in 10 foot of river, and if he did then the surface light would be much dimmer.
    I find it very interesting to read peoples comments trying frantically to give the impression that eels have been the obvious answer all along to them, whereas that's not how its come across up until recently.

    And 'Phoenix man' can you point me to the article that you mention where you say that Roland 'dealt with' the anonymous 2003 sighting, I was unaware that roland had carried out any actual investigation at the clansman sight, and I'm eagerly waiting for him to 'deal with it' in writing...dont say I missed it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Steve, as stated, it is a bit of guesswork. Hence my question to the fishery Facebook page 6 hours ago asking for more info.

      I am not aware of any 2003 photo, Steve. But if you're referring to the one from 2006, I critiqued your analysis and having decided it was wanting, there was no need to proceed further.


      Delete
    2. Ha!... what?
      That doesnt make any sense Roland.
      If you foind my analysis wanting then surely you do need to 'proceed further'.
      Your sort of saying Steve's wrong... therefore close the case.
      So now you imply that the photograph is... well I dont know what you think that is a photo of,
      Can you explain it?
      Can you identify any flaws in my findings?
      Is that a photo of nessie in your mind?
      Or should we all just forget it ever happened?
      After all it was you that brought it to the public's attention.
      So no conclusions then.

      Delete
    3. All in my articles, go find them.

      Delete
    4. “I find it very interesting to read peoples comments trying frantically to give the impression that eels have been the obvious answer all along to them, whereas that's not how its come across up until recently.” Until recently, you thought it was a catfish Steve! Eel fits better. Not the answer probably, but fits better.

      Delete
    5. John, I dont follow where you get your information from, why are you saying that "until recently" I thought it was a catfish? I wasnt aware that I'd changed my opinion.

      Delete
    6. Where do you get your information from Steve? I cant see anyone trying frantically to say the eel is the obvious answer all along. What i can see is people in the opinion that a big eel could be behind some of the sightings.

      Delete
    7. I'm sure you'll forgive a typo ,2003 instead of 2006,after all there's a few in your comments,at least that's what I presume they are.
      Roland's article on this sighting is one of the reasons I follow this blog. Unearthing new material and dealt with comprehensively,unlike other self appointed experts who contribute zilch. If I think the 2006 photo shows a large moving animate creature photographed at a distance then I'll stick with that,thanks very much.

      Delete
    8. Steve: Why the sensationalist tabloids of course. ;) LOL

      Delete
    9. I stand corrected Steve. A giant catfish is still one of the theories. Until we can eliminate that one, you're good to go.

      Delete
    10. Tomorrow is the day we find out if any catfish edna was found in the loch.

      Delete
    11. OK then, try this: Until it is determined that the catfish theory can be eliminated. There is also a very, very low probability that the eel theory explains what has been seen and described in the majority of cases. We? I don't know, fill in the blank.

      Delete
  12. From what im reading i think the comments are saying that a big eel could be behind SOME of the sightings not that they are the obvious answer.

    ReplyDelete
  13. That object looks more like a snake than an eel, especially the way its moving through the water, and the head looks more like a snake than the head of an eel.looked like it is more rigid swimming than the way eels swim.Eoin O Faodhagain.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hmmm...All I see is a fish. Maybe adjusting contrast and Briteness.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Just as you say ,it's probably your video playback. The footage shows s large ,eel like creature swimming.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Ness Fishery people think it is just a log/branch. Let the intepretation wars begin!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And did they tell you how big they think that little fish is ? Or how deep the water is right there?

      Delete
    2. No they did not, I presume however that the recent rains have had an effect on the river ness levels.

      Delete
  17. It looks a bit too flexible for me to be a branch.I will stick with an eel.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Looks like a log to me but could be a large eel I suppose. Not much movement in the body it just sort of slides.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Does it swim side to side like an eel? For comparison some footage from Norwegian tv a few years back of Selma, Norway's lake monster (just a wave? school of otters? something else?):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjmqWBMiCdQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, that Nessie! She's quite the traveler. Standing wave? Or, Selma the Lake Monster?

      Delete
  20. Yes, it's definately animate, as to its size, who knows.
    The news that 6ft plus eels reside in the loch is old hat to seasoned LMN buffs.
    I seem to recall Witchell's book [ or Holiday's ] mentioned that Irish eel poachers came over to Loch Ness many moons ago as the pickings were bigger, better than in Irish loughs .

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sorry if this is in the wrong place or if I missed it on here but...
    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/loch-ness-homeowner-spotted-unidentified-18984072.amp?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It looks a bit like Gordon Holmes's video from 2007.

      Delete
    2. He's a homeowner. Good for him. As for the Daily Record's website, I gave up trying to get the video running among a forest of adverts. A sad sign of our times.

      Delete
    3. As usual, too far away to show anything definitive. Are you running an Ad Blocker program Martin?

      Delete
  22. I spoke to Chris this morning at the press conference, he installed the camera, he says that it is in 3feet of water, the fish is about 12 inches long and he is adamant that the object at the surface is a stick.
    I believe him because I know how obsessively passionate he is about fish and his cameras.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looking at this video with the above comments in mind it seems to me that the object in question does not change shape. The appearance of sinuous movement may be produced by the particles in the water moving with the current.

      Delete
    2. Not sure of Chris' stick explanation, the "stick" looks like it is descending to a lower depth and is not at the surface. Follow the "head" as it goes from top left to bottom right.

      Delete
  23. I've just watched this six times.. Three times I thought it was an eel and three times I thought it was a stick!!!! Ha

    ReplyDelete