I just watched something last night that has me completely confused.
Okay, starting from the tippy-top…
I watch River Monsters on the Discovery Channel. I’m addicted to it. I do find the premise a bit campy, however. I wish that they could do away with it and
just go out and catch awesome, huge fish all over the world and film Jeremy
Wade doing it. I don’t understand why
they always have to tie the search for the fish to danger to humans, and try to
find past attacks before they can try and catch the thing, because it forces
them to come to strange conclusions just to find an excuse to tie certain fish
back to their premise.
The episode on Lake Iliamna and his conclusion that it is
white sturgeon that are the source of the reported human disappearances really
made me shake my head, and you could tell that Mr. Wade was sort of uncomfortable
making the association, but really had to in order to justify it being on “River
Monsters.” If they could just do away
with the “monster-as-danger” as being a prerequisite and just focus on “monster
as monster” (ie, large, or odd) or “monster as legend”, they’d lose that campy
feel and get back to the meat-and-potatoes of the show, which is the chronicles
of a well-spoken, multi-lingual, very intelligent biologist traveling the globe
in search of strange and rare freshwater fish species, often shrouded in
mystery and legend, and perhaps sometimes
dangerous to humans.
The Lake Iliamna monster is, in my opinion, almost certainly
a misidentified white sturgeon.
Ascipenser Transmontanus
As you
can see from my post and pictures earlier, they really are monsters (and the
one that I caught, at 9 feet long and 400 pounds, is less than half the size of
the largest ever recorded!). So I do not
disagree with Mr. Wade’s determination that what people saw on Lake Iliamna was
a sturgeon. The ludicrous part was his
trying to make a white sturgeon into something dangerous, which they are
not. They are about as harmful as a
puppy dog – no teeth, not aggressive or predatory at all, and more or less just
kind of, well, there. His uncomfortable conclusion (made, in my opinion, in order to justify having this awesome and odd fish on the show so that it satisfied the "dangerous to humans" pre-requisite) was that
maybe a sturgeon breeched and knocked over the canoe, and that the men inside
the canoe vanished because they drowned.
The problem with this is that there are places on Earth where sturgeon are
far more plentiful and around people more often, and we just don’t have that
kind of problem with them. I’ve never
heard of such a thing happening.
Besides, why do you need a river monster to explain the disappearances of
some men paddling about on a very large and frigid subarctic lake in a bark canoe? Couldn’t there be much more likely
explanations than a sturgeon breech?

Like, for instance, the fact that it is fucking cold?
So the show and I have a sort of bipolar relationship – I absolutely
love watching him trot the globe catching really cool and really nasty
freshwater critters. I love the biology
and the angling aspect of it, but I get a little turned off by the “danger”
aspect of it quite often; more often than not because it quite obviously is
silly and forced.
But last night, I’m left sort of shaking my head about what
the hell just happened. Jeremy Wade
decided that he was going to look into Loch Ness, which is something for which I’ve
been waiting on for quite some time. It
started out pretty well – he interviewed locals who had claimed to have seen
the beast; he dove into the lake to survey what life he could see; he even fished
the lake a bit. The conclusion that he
came to was that the Loch did not have the biomass in it to support a large
creature, and that therefore, the creature in question must’ve come in from the
sea. This is a sound conclusion based on
his assessment of the loch – one which many scientists agree with.
The first suggestion was that it was possible that a
sturgeon had blundered up the River Ness from the ocean, and that, like Lake
Iliamna, that was what people were seeing.
Jeremy canoed down the River Ness to survey the river conditions, and
found rapid sections that he determined were too shallow and fast for a
sturgeon to successfully get through.
This was the first time that he went off the rails in this
show, but it wouldn’t be even close to the last. The reason that I say that he went off the
rails here is due to the fact that I’ve seen sturgeon in rivers with lots of
shallow, fast rapids. In fact, some of
the most successful sturgeon populations we have around these parts are in
fast, shallow rivers. So I reject his assessment
that a sturgeon could not make its way into the Loch. In fact, if there is a population of sturgeon
living in the ocean at the mouth of the River Ness, I’d be greatly surprised if they haven’t, on occasion, swam up
into the Loch in search of food. And so,
I come to the conclusion, once again, that many monster sightings are actually
mis-identified sturgeon. This is
especially true in that sturgeon are not a known denizen of the loch, and so
folks wouldn’t be expecting to see them.
Jeremy Wade, however, rejected this premise. So he continued
to look for likely culprits, and found that river and lake monsters were generally
associated with Viking lore, and that in many places like Scotland, where Vikings
once were, there are river monster legends.
So he went to Iceland to investigate some lake monster sightings
there. While there, he learned about a
sub-arctic shark that might have an appearance similar to the sightings that he’d
heard about. So he went fishing for
Greenland Sharks in Norway. When he
caught one, he suggested that the
Greenland Shark might be the culprit for the
Loch Ness sightings.
This is where I went dudeomgwtf???
A quick listing of all the things totally fucked up about
this concept:
1.
Greenland Sharks do not have the ability to osmo-regulate,
meaning that, like most salt-water fish, they cannot live in fresh water. Some sharks do, in fact, have this ability. The most famous and well-known is the bull
shark. Jeremy made this point in the
show, while not mentioning that the Greenland Shark does not have this ability,
failing at logic forever in the process (a
species of shark has this ability, therefore
the Greenland Shark, which does not, can live in freshwater???). Loch Ness is fresh water. Greenland Sharks would hyper-hydrate in a
fresh water lake and die within hours from electrolyte imbalance. As a quick aside, sturgeon do have this osmo-regulation
ability, and move from salt to fresh water commonly.
2.
Greenland sharks are much, much bigger than the
local Atlantic sturgeon that would be found in the waters of Scotland. They are also very slow and lethargic, whereas
sturgeon are not. If, as per Jeremy’s
conclusion, a sturgeon could not navigate the rapids of the River Ness, how
does he presume that a Greenland Shark could?
Also, add to that the fact that sturgeon are renowned athletes – prized for
their speed and fighting ability on hook and line. Greenland Sharks, however, have a blistering,
maximum balls-out speed of less than 2 miles per hour. So if the rapid is too shallow and too fast
for a sturgeon that can swim at speeds 8 times faster than that, and is half
the size of a Greenland Shark, how, exactly, do you come the conclusion that a
Greenland Shark could navigate the rapid when a sturgeon could not?
3.
Greenland Sharks live in the ocean depths. The one that Jeremy caught was in over 2,000
feet of water. To get into the River
Ness, Greenland Sharks would need to come up to the surface – something that
they very rarely do.
I’m sort of shaking my head at this episode of what is
otherwise a really great show. I truly
don’t understand how the hell you can come to the conclusion that a salt-water
shark came up a freshwater river, into a lake, and does so often enough that it’s
been seen hundreds of times in the last 100 years.