Yes Minister, we’ll save Nessie from the poachers

Marc Horne

The
documents, released under the Freedom of Information Act, show a flurry
of consultations, meetings and briefings between the Scottish Office
and the Foreign Office.

Eventually it was decided that no new act of parliament was
needed and that the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act made it an
offence for anyone to snare, shoot or blow up Nessie with explosives.

Officials concluded: “The legislative framework to protect the
monster is available, provided she (or he) is identified by scientists
whose reputation will carry weight with the British Museum.” The files

also
show that a decade earlier, interest in the monster had reached
ministerial level. Willie Ross, the Scottish secretary, had considered
the issue of its existence after the publication of pictures said to
show Nessie.

The alarm over its legal status was sparked again by a letter in
August 1985 from the British embassy in Stockholm to the permanent
under-secretary at the Scottish Office. “I am sorry to bother you with
an inquiry which will, no doubt, be greeted at first glance with gales
of laughter,” it began.

The letter followed a request from Swedish officials seeking
information on the legal safeguards for Nessie. They were considering
statutory protection for the Storsjö monster, its counterpart in
Sweden, said to inhabit Lake Storsjö in the north of the country.

The embassy letter continued: “The county administrative board
into whose area the Storsjö lake falls . . . has approached us for help
in dealing with pressure for protection of the Storsjö monster, whose
status is somewhat similar to that of our own in Loch Ness.

“What, they wonder, do we do? Is ‘Nessie’ protected in any
way? The inquiry is a serious one and we should like to give them at
least a half- serious reply.”

A series of memos between British government departments
followed, including one from J B Barty, a civil servant at the Scottish
Office, stating: “The protection of this putative denizen of the deep
deserves serious consideration.”

An official reply was eventually sent to the embassy in
Stockholm, signed by one F H Orr. It stated: “The secretary of state
for Scotland has powers, on representation made to him by the Nature
Conservancy Council, to make an order adding any wild creature to the
schedule if in his opinion that creature is in danger of extinction . .
.”