I would have to say that yes, neoteny in certain salamander species could possibly lead to increases in size under certain conditions. It could be an area of inquiry with some cryptids, although I don’t think it would pertain to the Lake Cameron monster.

I also wanted to add that another problem I find with the “giant sterile eel” idea is that there have been eels that were observed to live to a ripe old age and they did not exhibit incredible spurts of monstrous growth. So although I can sort of see the thinking behind it, there just isn’t anything to demonstrate that this phenomenon actually happens. I would love it if someone here could reference us to a documented occurrence of it, but that really seems unlikely.

Anyway, for the reasons you have mentioned and that we have been discussing, the eel hypothesis seems to be just reaching at straws in any case.

I’m actually of the impression that what we see in the Cameron Lake footage is not biological at all. It looks to me to be a wave or wake. I also agree that what you pointed out with the shoreline before seems to be contradictory. I’d say that with what we have been presented with here so far, nothing is making me feel the need to consider this object as anything more than a wake.

Where do we go next in our discussion of the Cameron Lake phenomena?

As for the Blazka tunnel experiments and the energy demands of eels, I’m aware of these. These experiments are designed to figure out just how eels can have such endurance and swim so far without eating. They are to study the mechanisms that allow eels to accomplish this feat, and not really for disputing the fact that eels die off due to the demands ultimately put on their bodies.

I’m not sure which experiment you are referencing, but Blazka tunnel studies that I am aware of charted a great reduction in the body fat content of these eels during the course of their journey. In the study, a 30% drop in body fat content was recorded. When this was extrapolated for a 6,000 km journey, it was estimated that fat loss would be 60%. You must also remember that they need the energy not only to make the swim, but also to engage in actual spawning, for which only 40% of their fat reserves were available for. While the eels were able to show remarkable endurance and management of energy consumption, especially while not eating the whole time, the energy demands were still heavy. So the 5% weight loss figure you mention seems misleading.

I’m not sure how relevant these Blazka tunnel studies are to this discussion anyway. The studies in this case are trying to figure out how eels manage the huge energy demands of this spawning journey, not to demonstrate that there are no or few serious energy demands. We are also still left with the fact that ultimately, after all is said and done, the eels do die off after spawning due to the demands put on them. This is something the Blazka experiments obviously don’t refute, and it is a big component to the “giant sterile eel” hypothesis we were discussing here.

So in the context of this this thread, the hypothesis that sterile eels not making the spawning journey would not die and therefore perhaps grow bigger, the Blazka experiments have little relevance.

I am not an adherent of this giant eel idea, I was just trying to explain it how it is applied in cryptozoology. As for the hypothesis that sterile eels would grow this large, yes it is speculation, and to my knowledge unsupported by scientific studies that could be referenced. I thought I had made that clear, so I apologize if it was not.

You wrote “The spawning run from freshwater to sea takes a lot of energy, …” but European simulations of 5500 km migration swims in Blazka tunnel experiments showed typical weight loss of only 5 (five) % over the 6 months long experiment.

Similar experiments unfortunately cannot be carried out on freshwater eels from the Pacific North-West population because there aren’t any.

I understand that there are a lot of factors, many of which are not well understood, that could lead to size variations within these species. I also find it fascinating how many factors are involved in the reproductive habits of eels and similar fish. What I was addressing is the “giant sterile eel” hypothesis as used in this article and within cryptozoology for the purposes of trying to come to an explanation for some lake monster sightings.

This hypothesis is quite simple in a way. It merely posits that an eel that is not directing its energy towards spawning, and not dying off as a result, is perhaps going to grow larger. The reasons for this would be two-fold. Not only is it putting that energy it would have used in its journey towards gaining size, but it also is avoiding the fatal consequences of spawning, which might allow it to achieve a higher potential maximum size compared to other eels.

I’m sorry if I seem to be oversimplifying things, but that is the main concept behind the hypothesis mentioned here. That is certainly not to say that other factors aren’t involved, and you bring up a lot of interesting research and avenues of inquiry. I am certainly not ignoring those things. I was just addressing the sterile eel hypothesis as it was being used here, and not trying to discount all of the things you mentioned.

When the “giant sterile eel” hypothesis is brought up, it is typically looking at the one factor of the eels not spawning as a reason for the size increase. All of the other things you mentioned are valid, and add to the possibilities, however I was addressing just the factor of sterility as a component of large size gains in freshwater eels.

Wuffing asked about it, so I felt compelled to illustrate it, although perhaps my explanation hasn’t been so well done. The point is, sterility in particular as a size factor was what I was touching on here, and it is not a well documented thing in eels at this point. I personally have my doubts as to whether it is involved to any degree with lake monsters. I actually am much more interested in other factors such as the ones you mentioned.

I suppose there could be instances when eels would for some reason or other be unable or unwilling to spawn, for instance if they were sterile as the hypothesis states. Or perhaps if their route to the sea was blocked by man made or natural means, which would probably make spawning impossible for a catadromous organism. Perhaps the gigantic individuals in question have aberrant brain functioning that causes them to not have that drive to spawn. Obviously it would be a very rare occurrence if it happens at all, or we would have well documented cases of this happening all of the time.

Like I said, there is likely no real study done on this, at least not that I’m aware of. We can only speculate on the reasons for why an eel would be sterile or unable to spawn somehow. I was merely trying to explain the thinking behind the “giant sterile eel” hypothesis and the lack of solid scientific studies done on this, which you requested references for.

To get back to the original “what could it be?” we are told that the witness on the south shore of the 1/2 mile wide lake saw three things going round in a semi-circle.

The published picture shows a single thing going in a straight line, with a background showing about 12 yards of shoreline and easily resolved individual leaves on the bushes.

Am I alone in finding these data contradictory?