Protection for Nessie ?
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on January 9th, 2006
The Sunday Times of Scotland unearthed documents between governmental agencies over the question of protection for the Loch Ness Monster. Using the Freedom of Information Act, the documents previously "marked" closed were made public.
Civil servants eventually concluded that should Nessie surface, she (or he) would be entitled to protection from poachers under the provisions of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act. The legislation would make it an offence for anyone to snare, shoot or blow up Nessie with explosives.
The issue went as high as senior officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). The files also reveal that the issue had earlier been considered by the secretary of state for Scotland.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
With all due respect to cryptofolk who push for protection of cryptids, I think doing so is not only a logical fallacy, but a waste of time and makes cryptozoology look rather silly. It is of course illogical because one should prove that something exists before crafting rules and laws about how to treat them if they are ever proven real; it is a waste of time because such a law or policy has never been violated, and our lawmakers have more important things to do that “protect” Bigfoot or lake monsters that have not even been shown to exist.
The general public know this, and recognize that someone is jumping the gun, and it makes us look foolish.
I know many wish to do this because they think it brings publicity to the cryptid, but the publicity is the wrong kind. Cryptozoologists who want to bring legitimacy to the field should spend more time searching for the creatures, and less time trying to “protect” them.
There is little evidence that cryptozoologists are preoccupied with this, and more that tourist bureaus and politicians seeking publicity are the real sources of most (but not all) such “legal” actions to protect cryptids.
While it might be fun to talk about, cryptozoologists that I know do spend more time trying to establish the actual zoological reality of cryptids as opposed to wasting their time with setting up protective measures and reservations where the as-yet-to-be verified animals will be safely “protected” or “housed” some day.
Considering the unique characteristics of the situation which involves a living creature, making pre-emptive protective laws is justified when the “proof” that a certain creature exists may most likely come at the expense of the creature’s life, especially since other avenues of proof such as live capture would be more desirable.
“It is of course illogical because one should prove that something exists before crafting rules and laws about how to treat them if they are ever proven real; it is a waste of time because such a law or policy has never been violated, and our lawmakers have more important things to do that “protect” Bigfoot or lake monsters that have not even been shown to exist.”
Actually it’s not a waste of time from a law-maker standpoint; as there are other considerations from a public perspective. The Scottish protection proposal was probably in the same spirit as the Skamania County sasquatch ordinance, which was primarily concerned with trying to keep a mass of armed, jittery wanna-be “Bigfoot hunters” with high-powered rifles out of the woods and reduce the chance of what could have been a very legitimate danger to the public. At the time the Nessie laws were being pondered, there may have been a perceived increase in enthusiasts’ activity aimed at trying to capture it, so much so that a potential public nuisance or threat was perceived by the authorities. The thinking is that if you make it illegal to catch it, nobody would bother trying to look for it.
Sasquatchery makes a good point here.
I have to agree it is good civil action when lawmakers and law enforcement officials create ordinances to quiet the “safari” syndrome that sometimes follows in a flap of reports. It is the humans that are being controlled.
This seemed to happen often in the 1960s and 1970s with various flaps of Bigfoot, Lizardmen, and Mothman sightings, where carloads of teens, hunters, and sightseers would crowd a location that was in the midst of a hot series of encounters. Sheriff departments would have their hands full, and there was a real fear someone would get killed.
In the case of Nessie hunting, it was the monster that the lawmakers were afraid was going to be harmed by, for example, Dan Taylor and his attempt to harpoon a Loch Ness cryptid from his minisub in 1999.
Broken down, individually, there appear to be reasons for each passed ordinance or legal action that have jokingly been referred to by the media as “monster protection laws.”