Now, as for Nessie’s identity, I used to think that they were plesiosaurs. However, I have now changed my mind. I now think that they are most likely to be long-necked pinnipeds, that have evolved independently, to look like plesiosaurs, via convergent evolution. In my opinion, the pinniped theory makes the most sense, and comes closest to explaining most of the evidence, from Loch Ness.

The other claim that always mystifies me is the idea that if a critter had to come to the surface to breathe it would be seen all of the time. Again, it is an argument that, on the surface sounds valid, but in reality is not.

As I said above, we’re talking 24 square miles of surface area on the loch. Doesn’t sound too daunting until you think of it in real terms: that’s 126,720 feet long by up to 5280 feet wide, or 669,081,600 square feet of surface area to keep track of. In the face of that, it would be easy to say that a creature even 15-25 feet long would be able to stick its head up to the surface without being noticed on a regular basis.

With the loch being a mile across, and the deepest parts being in the middle areas, it stands to reason a larger creature would stick to the deeper waters and would often surface out in the middle. How good is human eyesight? Good enough from either shore to see clearly out 1/2 a mile and pick something out on the water?

Maybe, occasionally, on a clear day when the water is calm…which is when many sightings occur. Loch Ness is notorious for weather changes, and quick changing weather, so getting calm weather in which to observe such a creature coming to the surface is still the proverbial ‘needle in a haystack.’

As to whether it is vertebrate or invertebrate, it’s hard to say. Giant squid come to the surface occasionally (if stories are to be believed:). I think the plesiosaur idea has stuck for so long because it’s easy for the general masses to wrap their imaginations around. Like I said it’s easy.

As to what I think it might be…I haven’t come to a real conclusion on that…would have to see it myself–and that’s still a few years out:). There are a whole range of possibilities, but as Cliffhanger said, we’re going to be debating this until someone finds a body.

If there were any large unknown creatures in the loch (which I doubt) they are not plesiosaurs. To house a reproducing colony of large vertebrate creatures would take tremendous food resources. Unlike other lakes in temperate or tropical lakes, Ness lacks many basic nutrients that build the food web. For its size, the fish population is light. Also a large vertebrate would be detected more easily and eventually a carcass would be recovered.

A large invertebrate would be harder to spot and maybe only be near the surface extremely rarely and briefly. Possibly on sonar the soft body would be more shadowy, less distinct and lost altogether at or near the bottom. Maybe it dines on peat and algae like a slug or a snail? IF an unknown is there it is probably along that line.

As for the size of the loch–while it may not be the surface area of the Pacific Northwest, we are talking about a body of water 24 miles long, a mile across at various points and up to 900 feet deep in spots (I think the average is more like 300-500 feet). So we’re talking about 24 square miles of loch on just the surface.

There are also a number of reports of the creature on land or the shore, so if it is not water locked, then that adds to the area.

And given the fact that the loch is not ringed by settlements, houses or the like, there are plenty of places for a creature to roll around on the surface without fear of being harassed, let alone seen.

I’m not sold on the plesiosaur theory either…there are similarities, but that only means that the critter may be something resembling some of the characteristics of a plesiosaur type animal…long neck, possible flippers, etc. It’s just that the plesiosaur theory is the most popular because on several fronts, it ‘fits the bill’ the best, so to speak.

As for the carcass, while in a cold water lake you might suspect the creature would decompose slowly, the fact is there are a plethora (not plesiosaur) of eels and fish and smaller things to clean out a carcass in a short amount of time. Then the bones would settle to the bottom, and with all of the peat and other crap at the bottom, it would not be hard or take long to bury the remains in the silt (or whatever it is scientifically called) to cover any remains that might be there. As far as I know, there have been no efforts to dredge the bottom because of the depth and harsh conditions of the loch.