What is in this postcard?

Here's an interesting postcard from 1916 which I noticed on eBay a while back. It was posted 17 years before the Nessie era began in 1933. The familiar backdrop of Urquhart Castle is there but what is that blob like thing in the water in front of the castle?

Is it our famous resident of Loch Ness on a jaunt or something more familiar? The castle is about 50 feet high which allows us to calculate the height of the object as about two feet out of the water and six feet wide.

Is it a rowing boat? Perhaps, but any presumed occupant of the boat is rather hard to see as are the expected oars. 

Opinions, please!

New Picture of Nessie?

A YouTube clip is now doing the rounds which shows something strange in Loch Ness. The photographer is Dan Sohan and you can view the clip below. Dan says he took the image on the 9th May or 13 days ago.

I have contacted him for further details and hope to say more but expect explanations such as it is a picture of a bird in flight in the tradition of the Jennifer Bruce picture taken in 1982. For now, I would prefer to get more info such as whether this is a still from a video clip. 

POSTSCRIPT:

Loch Ness researcher, Dick Raynor, got in touch with me and says the image was actually recorded somewhere between Onich and North Ballahulish which is over thirty miles south of Loch Ness. This is based on a comparison between the hills in the picture's background and what can be seen using Google StreetView.

Dan has also got back to me and says that the image was a single shot and he thinks he was actually driving along Loch Lochy at the time.

The Elf-Cattle of Caithness

I was going through some of my old emails when I came across this old newspaper clipping. I had found it as part of my earlier research into my book "The Water Horses of Loch Ness" but had not used it. So now is a good time a time as any to look at it. It is taken from the John O' Groats Journal dated the 31st December 1852.

Our story concerns a type of loch beast called the Water Bull of which Loch Ness itself was reputed to host one. However, this story is set in Caithness, the northernmost part of mainland Scotland (the green tip on our map below).

The lochs in question are not named, though my own research unearthed only one monster loch in Caithness and that is Loch Na Cloiche. Whether this was in mind or not, the elf-cattle pretty much follow the Water Bull type in inter breeding with land cattle but keep their abode in the waters of the loch. Other sources tell us that the hybrid product of land cows and water bulls were called "corcach" in the Gaelic whilst the aquatic beasts themselves were more docile than their more fearsome counterparts, the Water Horse and Kelpie.

The other interesting term is "elf-cattle" and one wonders if the locals were attempting to envisage a parallel world of creatures to those in the natural world. Just as there was the Cu-Sith or fairy-dog and the feline Cat Sith, was there also equivalent livestock in Scottish lochs?

Finally, you may wonder what the author means by the "much maligned development hypothesis"? It is in fact a precursor to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and pre-dates it by over ten years. You can read more about it here. As it turns out, the author of the article was arguing that the mythical beast may actually have some basis in the idea that a creature had developed in the Highland lochs from a more humble fish form.

Porpoises in Loch Ness?

It was assumed for a long time that seals never visited Loch Ness. However, it is now established that they do follow the salmon into the loch on rare occasions.

But what about the dolphins and porpoises that are a tourist attraction along the Moray Firth? Is it possible that they could get into Loch Ness? Until now, it was assumed this was a task too great and there was no record of such an event. Indeed, the only possibility was the famous attempt by the Robert Rines team to deploy a couple of equipped dolphins into the loch. This project never saw the light of day when one of the dolphins died.

However, some months back, Fortean Investigator, Paul Cropper sent me a clipping which suggested otherwise (Paul is a fan of the Australian Bigfoot called the Yowie). This small paragraph is from the London Daily Mail of the 16th September 1914 (click on all subsequent clippings for sharper images).

 

So we have the incredible sight of not one porpoise but a whole school of them swimming in Loch Ness! I forwarded Paul's find to Adrian Shine at the Loch Ness Centre in Drumnadrochit and he managed to find further details from the local archives. The first clipping from the Highland News of the 5th September tells us more about what was witnessed.

So we have eight or nine porpoises in Loch Ness. Now when I pondered on all this and the improbability of it, I wondered if the correspondent had actually seen the Loch Ness Monster in its multi-hump aspect? I mused that if there was a large beast in Loch Ness, it was more probable to see that than a school of porpoises! However, a second clipping from the 19th found by Adrian puts us back in the porpoise camp. This appears to be the original correspondent replying to someone who was incredulous of the whole event. Here we read how the familiar "blowing" activity of porpoises was observed (a habit never reported in monster reports).

The article continues to quote an as yet untraced article which speaks of a journalist going out to investigate the matter. Indeed, it seems our witness was as much believed as a modern day Nessie witness as the journalist concluded it was merely a shoal of fish skimming along the surface of the water.

So what do we make of this possibly unique event? The first is that so far we only seem to have one person claiming to have seen these animals. Considering the active surface life of porpoises, one would presume others must have seen them. This muddies the waters somewhat and (according to Adrian Shine) the Inverness Courier does not seem to have run the story.

Secondly, could it have been dolphins rather than porpoises? Now, how you can tell the difference between the two from distance is not clear to me but the porpoise has in its favour that they can be half the size of a Bottlenose dolphin and hence could negotiate a river spate into Loch Ness more easily. But whatever the species, it no lessens this remarkable event.

Thirdly, it may be asked whether there were any claimed stories about the Loch Ness Monster at that time (as told retrospectively by people after 1933)? There were actually two stories of something seen in 1914, but there were in July and I suspect may have been the same sighting.

All in all, it is a strange tale in its own right. Almost 100 years on, the implication is that there is a mass of porpoise skeletons lying at the bottom of Loch Ness somewhere, doubtless covered in silt by now.

How did they meet their end? Did they encounter the loch's most famous denizen and will such an event ever be witnessed again? It all adds to the lore and fascination of Scotland's most mysterious loch.

POSTSCRIPT

Adrian Shine sent me another clipping from the Northern Chronicle for the 16th September 1914 which adds one or two more details to this uniquely recorded event.

Loch Ness Trip Report April 2013

It was off to Loch Ness once more on the 12th April on what is becoming a regular Easter trip to the abode of the Loch Ness Monster. I was there for five days and have already covered some of the activities which were part of the "Nessie at 80" festivities. This article covers what I got up to at other times in the great pursuit of the monster (of which you see a representation below).

The three to four hour drive up to the loch from Edinburgh was pleasant enough and we even managed to avoid getting stuck behind tractors on the mainly single carriageway road. Arriving at Fort Augustus in the late afternoon, we turned into the camping site that is just beyond the old Monastery (which has been residential flats for some years now).

The campsite is cheap enough, but being a 100% born and bred Scotsman, one is always looking out for a better deal to save a pound or two. As it turns out, "wild camping" is allowed along many parts of the loch's shores. Apart from the obvious advantage of paying nothing, you are right up besides the loch and never far away from the action (whereas the campsite is a 5-10 minute walk from the loch shoreline).

In fact, whilst engaged in Nessie activities, I stumbled upon such a tent near Invermoriston on the shore beyond the roadside bushes and well out of sight. However, the disadvantage of such a camping tactic became clear as the beach was only really big enough to accommodate a one man tent. I had a bigger tent which would have no chance of being pitched in such a place.

There may be other wider spots but the other disadvantage is what happens if Nessie takes to land near your tent? Now I know the chances of this happening are very rare (one land sighting reported every four years) but you never know. One apocryphal tale from the 1970s tells of some teenagers camped out somewhere near Fort Augustus who heard loud animal noises outside their tent at night.

Not daring to poke their heads out to investigate (in case there was no heads to pull back in), the morning came and they discovered that the shrubbery around them was crushed. I mused to myself what I would have done in that situation.

The weather throughout the time was best described as mixed. Fortunately, the worst of the rain tended to confine itself to night time with occasional outbreaks during the days. The downside of that is the constant pitter patter of rain on the tent fabric which does not help a light sleeper such as myself! However, apart from some nice sunny spells, it was mainly a cloudy trip.

The first thing to do on the next full day was to install my trusty trap camera which stayed strapped to a tree for the duration of the trip. This time round, not too many pictures were triggered due to the relatively settled waters. The two pictures below show the different moods of the loch. Nessie being a water breather was not too inclined to make a surface appearance for the camera.

In regard to the elusiveness of a creature that does not primarily breath air and tends to haunt the sides and bottom of the loch, one calculation was on my mind. As I watched out over the vast expanse of the loch (below), I wondered what the odds were of being present at one of the sightings of the monster? Assuming a historical average of ten sightings per year, the odds came out at about 18,000 to 1 against if you were there for just one day looking at the loch for one hour.

Of course, there is a degree of simplification in all that but it reminded me that Monster Hunting was essentially a game with loaded dice. Even searching underwater in that inky darkness is no idle pursuit. Adding up the surface areas of the silted bottom and the rocky sides gives an area of over 5 million square meters. That is more than twice the size of my own city of Edinburgh. Imagine trying to find a randomly parked bus in Edinburgh at night in fog during a power cut and you get the general idea.

Apart from gazing at the loch, I like to do some investigation of old sightings. One place I returned to was Borlum Bay where Margaret Munro had her famous land sighting in 1934. I had noticed during Adrian Shine's presentation at the April Symposium that he thought she had only seen a seal.

With that in mind, I went back to the scene, did some measurements, took some photographs and came away thinking that explanation was not likely. I will present my thoughts on that at a later date. I also tracked down the place where this interesting photograph from 1992 was taken. Based on an investigation of the scene, I do not think it was a bird but then again monsters are not necessarily the explanation either. I have still to digest the pictures I took for another future article.

One final case to look into was the classic picture taken by F.C. Adams in 1934 (below). Not a lot is known about this picture and it tends to be dismissed as the dorsal fin of a dolphin. One thing I am sure of is that this is no dolphin and it was off to Urquhart Castle where the picture was allegedly taken according to a contemporary report of the time. This photo still has further light to be shed on it, but again, this awaits a future article.

I had not been to the castle for some years and certainly not since they redeveloped the area. However, in the interests of research I paid up and took the tour. Admittedly, they have done a good job on the site with the actual castle grounds being largely untouched. The film they showed was informative as were the various displays.

As I explored the various stony caverns that once functioned as rooms in a busy castle and I wondered what stories those past residents had to tell of strange sights on Loch Ness. I had a close look at the stones on display that were remnants of the final destruction of the place. I even imagined one showed a long necked creature rising from the centre right of the picture towards the centre (see picture below). Oh well, nice to imagine, but one wonders how such medieval inhabitants recorded such things since pen and paper were not exactly available or useable.

One highlight was a trip on Marcus Atkinson's high speed boat which forms part of the Cruise Loch Ness trips. Marcus is known for the strange sonar contact he got whilst one of their boats were idling in Urquhart Bay. These sleek boats can get up to 30 knots per hour and with some of the Symposium attendees, it was off on a fast hike to the Horseshoe Scree where we had a look at the sonar readings and hunted for goats on the hillside (we managed to spot one).

A mention must also be made of the exhibition at the Loch Ness Centre at Drumnadrochit. I had not been to this for a long time but I was there for a look around and it had been upgraded. Adrian's stamp is very much on the exhibition with a mix of science, history and monsters and a look at his favourite sturgeon. However, an annexe had been added which covered various events such as the retrieval of the Wellington bomber and a very nice exhibit which had audio-visual presentations of witnesses to famous Nessie sightings giving their own personal accounts such as Alastair Boyd, Ian Cameron, Father Brussey and Winifred Carey and so on. There is nothing like hearing the original witness give their own account of what they saw.

However, when all was said and done, it was nice to get a picture of at least one long necked creature swimming on the loch. I look forward to my next trip later in the Summer!

Classic Sightings: Aldie Mackay

Date: April 14th 1933
Time: about 3pm
Location: Off Aldourie
Witnesses: Mrs. Aldie Mackay.
Type of sighting: Double Hump
Conditions: Sun shining brightly, loch absolutely calm

As the various events surrounding the 80th anniversary of the first modern sighting of Nessie recede, it is only fitting that this blog finally gets round to investigating this seminal sighting from the Loch Ness Monster saga. The story itself first appeared on the 2nd May 1933 in the local Inverness Courier and the text is reproduced below.

Loch Ness has for generations been credited with being the home of a fearsome looking monster, but, somehow or other, the "water kelpie", as this legendary creature is called, has always been regarded as a myth, if not a joke.
 
Now, however, comes the news that the beast has been seen once more, for on Friday of last week, a well-known businessman who lives in Inverness, and his wife (a University graduate), when motoring along the north shore of the loch, not far from Abriachan pier, were startled to see a tremendous upheaval on the loch, which, previously, had been as calm as the proverbial millpond. The lady was the first to notice the disturbance, which occurred fully three-quarters of a mile from the shore, and it was her sudden cries to stop that drew her husband's attention to the water.
 
There, the creature disported itself, rolling and plunging for fully a minute, its body resembling that of a whale, and the water cascading and churning like a simmering cauldron. Soon, however, it disappeared in a boiling mass of foam. Both onlookers confessed that there was something uncanny about the whole thing, for they realised that here was no ordinary denizen of the depths, because, apart from its enormous size, the beast, in taking the final plunge, sent out waves that were big enough to have been caused by passing steamer. The  watchers waited for almost half an hour in the hope that the monster (if such it was) would come to the surface again; but they had seen the last of it.
 
Questioned as to the length of the beast, the lady stated that, judging by the state of the water in the affected area, it seemed to be many feet long.
 
It will be remembered that a few years ago, a party of Inverness anglers reported that, when crossing the loch in a rowing boat, they encountered an unknown creature, whose bulk, movements, and the amount of water displaced at once suggested that it was either a very large seal, a porpoise, or, indeed, the monster itself!
 
But the story, which duly appeared in the press, received scant attention, and less credence.  In fact most of those people who were aired their views on the matter did so in a manner that bespoke feelings of the utmost scepticism.
 
It should be mentioned that, so far as is known, neither seals nor porpoises have ever been known to enter Loch Ness.  Indeed, in the case of the latter, it would be utterly impossible for them to do so, and, as to the seals, it is the fact that though they have on rare occasions been seen in the River Ness, their presence in Loch Ness has never been definitely established.

Though not the first story to appear about monsters in Loch Ness, it set a mark in the timeline of the modern phenomenon of the Loch Ness Monster. However, being an iconic story in the Loch Ness saga, it has not escaped the attention of Nessie sceptics. The problem is they can't seem to agree on what Mrs. Mackay (pictured below in the 1980s) saw.

SEALS

Dick Raynor, at his sceptical website suggests they saw two seals in the midst of a mating display. To see one seal in Loch Ness is rare. To see two seals in Loch Ness is even rarer. To see two seals in Loch Ness indulging in a mating display ... well, perhaps someone could compute the odds of that happening. The point being that one may propose an alternative explanation that is "more probable" in relative terms, but if that explanation is also of low probability in absolute terms then it should be rejected as well.

As far as I know, there were no media mentions of seals in Loch Ness at that time. On the same website is an article by Gordon Williamson on seals in Loch Ness. He suggests that seals probably enter the loch on average once every two years. Curiously, he mentions a seal sighting in 1933. Thinking this may be relevant to our sighting, the reference given is the same Inverness Courier article above! I was actually expecting a report where a seal was positively identified, not a monster report.

Others reasons for being sceptical of two mating seals:

According to the Scottish Natural Heritage website,  grey seals will mate between October and December whilst common (harbour) seals mate earlier in the Summer. According to an interview Mrs. Mackay gave to the BBC on the 50th anniversary of her sighting she said it had occurred in March and not April. This does not appear to be the right time for the mating season.

Secondly, looking at the picture at the top drawn under Mrs. Mackay's directions, the two humps are each about 6-7 feet long. A seal would typically only show about 2 feet of back. This requires Mrs. Mackay to have over estimated the length of an alleged seal by a factor of three (it is to be noted she was a local salmon angler and so would have had some familiarity with the waters and perhaps had seen seals in the Inverness area herself).

Thirdly, the Courier reports states the witnesses waited a further half hour for something to appear which is inconsistent with the observed dives of 3-8 minutes noted in the Williamson article.

EXAGGERATIONS

Ronald Binns, in his 1983 book, "The Loch Ness Mystery - Solved", is typically dismissive of the sighting and suggests the newspaper reporter "wildly exaggerated" the account. That reporter was Alex Campbell whom Binns accuses of "being deeply committed to the belief that Loch Ness was the home of monsters".

Now I could describe myself as "deeply committed" to the same cause but that does not mean I start fabricating portions of eyewitness testimony. However, Binns' assertion is completely unfounded as we have a second and better source for the story in Rupert Gould's book "The Loch Ness Monster and Others".  Gould visited the loch at the end of 1933 and conducted interviews with various witnesses to the phenomenon which he called "X". With the Mackays handily situated at the Drumnadrochit Hotel, they too were interviewed by him.

So what we have in Gould's book is an expansion of the shorter report from the Inverness Courier. He recounts the sighting thusly:

Mrs. Mackay and her husband were driving from Inverness to Drumnadrochit. At a point of the road almost opposite Aldourie Pier [which is on the other side of the Loch] Mrs. Mackay caught sight of a violent commotion in the water nearby, about 100 yards from shore. She thought at first that it was caused by two ducks fighting; but on reflection it seemed far too extensive to be caused in this way. 

The commotion subsided, and a big wake became visible, apparently caused by something large moving along just below the surface. This wake went away across the Loch towards Aldourie Pier. Then, about the middle of the Loch [some 450 yards from her], the cause of the wake emerged, showing as two black humps moving in line - the rear one somewhat the larger.

The rear hump appeared first, and Mrs. Mackay took it for a whale on account of its blue-black colour [she has often seen whales at sea]. The two humps moved with the forward-rolling motion of a whale or porpoise, but always remained smooth in outline, exhibiting no traces of fins. They rose and sank in an undulating manner [as if sliding along a submerged switchback] but never went entirely out of sight.

Mrs. Mackay estimated the overall length of the two humps at about 20 feet. X, after rising, continued to move towards the pier for some distance. Then it turned sharply to port and, after describing a half-circle, sank suddenly with considerable commotion. [Mr. Mackay, who was driving the car, only stopped in time to see the final commotion, and a noticeable "wash" which came rolling on to the shore after X had sunk.

An account of Mrs. Mackay's experience appeared in the Inverness Courier, 2.v.33. No names were mentioned like Mr. Milne, Mrs. Mackay wished to avoid the suggestion of self-advertisement. Her husband is proprietor of the Drumnadrochit Hotel.]

Based on this account and other information, a rough sketch can be made of the sighting and its progress on a map of the top of Loch Ness. The position of the witnesses are marked with the cross. No claim to 100% accuracy can be made on my attempt at reproduction!

Note when comparing familiar wildlife to the phenomenon, she choose the whale rather than the seal. Now Ronald Binns had obviously read the Gould version as he footnotes the book but strangely only mentions the commotion in the water and Mrs. Mackay's initial assumption it was two ducks fighting. He fails to mentions the two humps later seen and the fact that Aldie Mackay dismissed the idea of two ducks as the commotion was too large. This is poor form in critical analysis.

The Gould version also clearly demonstrates that Campbell did not "wildly exaggerate" the story as Gould produced a similar account but with more detail.

This is not the first time I have taken Ronald Binns' book to task for mishandling stories. Right at the end of the Mackay story, he mentions an Alexander Mackay as a "major source of stories" to Rupert Gould. This Mr. Mackay was the proprietor of the Drumnadrochit Hotel twenty years previously and I would assume was related to the then proprietor John Mackay (Binns says they were brothers).

Why he should mention this "factoid" at this point is a matter of conjecture. As it turns out, Alexander Mackay was not a major source of stories. Gould mentions on page 31 how Mackay related to him a tale from 1913 involving a James Cameron. That's it, no other stories are mentioned as coming from Mr. Mackay. So can anyone explain to me how relating one solitary story to someone else makes you a "major source"?

The insertion of Alexander Mackay at that point is clear to me. The implication is that Alexander Mackay was a teller of tall tales and being Aldie Mackay's presumed brother-in-law, there is guilt by association. No one should accept this line of logic for one second, but we move on.

FIFTY YEARS LATER

Mrs. Mackay did not quite fade from the limelight after those days in the 1930s. As stated above, she was interviewed on the 50th anniversary of the beast in 1983. I have a 1990/2005 DVD documentary called "The Loch Ness Story" narrated by John Sheddon which has a video excerpt of her talking about her sighting, presumably around that time. I dug out that DVD and replayed it again with the information above in mind.

The account is consistent with what was said 50 years previously, though after such a long passage of time, I would expect some details to be garbled and the lady must have been in her eighties by my reckoning.

Alongside this was Tony Harmsworth's account in his book "Loch Ness Understood" which details how he heard in 1986 that Aldie Mackay was still alive and went with Nicholas Witchell to interview here (which makes me wonder if the 1983 date is accurate).

During the interview, Nicholas Witchell asked Mrs. Mackay how big the object was and she said "six to nine feet". Tony expressed some disappointment at this and began to think that the creature in Loch Ness must be something less than monstrous.

Now a creature showing up to nine feet of back out of the water can hardly be described as small but this raises the only point of confusion for me in this story since in the earlier Gould account, the creature is estimated at 20 feet long. How do we reconcile these?

Normally, unless there is an overriding reason, one would choose the account closer to the event as memories do indeed fade over time. So, the account given to Gould some eight months after the event clearly has preference over an account given all of 53 years later. However, the two numbers can be reconciled if Mrs. Mackay was describing the size of each object. I repeat what I said above:

"Looking at the picture at the top drawn under Mrs. Mackay's directions, the two humps are each about 6-7 feet long."

Whether one or two creatures were in view and what Mrs. Mackay's opinion on that may have been is a matter of speculation that is not likely to be resolved.

STANDING WAVES

Another interpretation is that Mrs. Mackay merely saw some standing waves produced by a boat that had previously passed. In this respect, Nessie sceptic, Steuart Campbell, recently commented on the sighting for an article in The Scotsman. Having explained the phenomenon of these waves, he says:

I conclude that the Mackays saw Scot II’s wakes interacting as they collided with the shores of the narrower north-east end of Loch Ness and that the only monster in the lake at the time was Scot II.

Scott II was a ferry boat with an ice-breaker hull which produced bigger waves and therefore (when conditions allowed), bigger standing waves. In fact, Scott II seems to have been a favourite of sceptics having been employed to explain away a number of sightings, including Alastair Boyd's good sighting of 1979.

However, his explanation lacks in two areas. The first is that standing waves do not change direction as stated in the report or cross over from Abriachan to Aldourie. The assertion that standing waves are reinforced by reflection from the shore is also debatable. Referring again to loch watcher, Dick Raynor, he said this about reflection:

I often read about the divergent waves bouncing off the steep shores and being reflected back into the the centre of the loch to produce standing waves, but I have never seen that myself; I just see the waves break on the shore and the energy is dissipated.

While I am on the subject of quoting Mr. Campbell and in the light of Mrs. Mackay and her belief in the Kelpie of Loch Ness, he says this in the same article concerning such beasts:

There was a similar belief about every Scottish lake, but because of the size of Loch Ness, its kelpie was thought to be the biggest. 

This is inaccurate on two points. Firstly, there is no evidence that every Scottish lake had such a belief. This is an assumption, and as my own studies of the contemporary literature revealed, I could only find fifty such lochs out of the hundreds written about. It would be more accurate to say "there was a similar belief about many Scottish lakes".

Secondly, it cannot be assumed that because of its size, Loch Ness had the biggest Kelpie. In fact, I am not sure what is meant by biggest. If he means physically bigger or more powerful, that is unwarranted. If he means it had the biggest reputation, then that is demonstrable but cannot be assumed from loch size. This can be proven from the fact that Loch Lomond has a larger surface area to spot Kelpies on than Loch Ness but has far less tradition attached to it. This also applies to other large lochs in Scotland and hence the size link is tenuous at best.

CONCLUSIONS

Seals, boat wakes, lies or something a bit more mysterious? Mrs. Mackay was adamant that it was no seal and her time as an salmon angler must count for something in separating wave effects from the less ordinary. I don't think she was fooled by anything at all, what she saw was what she said when she uttered that cry "It's the Beastie!".

The record of that day is true and this blog stands with Mrs. Mackay when she saw the first of hundreds if not thousands of sightings, recorded and unrecorded, of the great Monster of Loch Ness.

Where was Nessie during the Ice Age?

Over ten thousand years ago, Loch Ness was covered in ice as the whole of Scotland succumbed to the last glacial advance. Note I did not say "last Ice Age" as apparently because there are polar ice caps today, we are technically still in an ongoing ice age (albeit a quieter phase).

However, since we assume the Loch Ness Monster had some ancestors, where would they have lived? The answer may come from a recent study on salmon genetics explained in this BBC article. The headline tell us:

An area of coastal waters around North-West France has been identified as a site for a previously unknown ice-free refuge for salmon during the Ice Age. 

Now since it is believed that the monster feeds on salmon running in and out of Loch Ness, could it be a case of "follow the money" or "follow the salmon" when it comes to Nessie's previous abode? 

In that light, perhaps the Loch Ness Monster was the "Hurd Deep Sea Serpent" after the name of the location for these ancient salmon? Furthermore, as the ice receded and the salmon progressed northwards, it seems more reasonable to conclude that these monsters would have entered the Great Glen from the south rather than the northern Moray Firth. That is based on the assumption that the north would still be more ice bound than the warmer south.

When the great glacial lake at Glen Roy broke and inundated the area with water, it is conceivable that the relocation of the monsters to Loch Ness was completed when the rushing waters headed north through Loch Ness and into the sea (link) taking many a creature with it but some managed to stay in Loch Ness.

Unfortunately, the abundance of salmon now passing through rivers has declined markedly since the 1980s and one wonders how that has impacted the diet of the Loch Ness Monster.Hopefully, not enough to drive Nessie back to the sea!