How Would You Hunt Bigfoot?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on February 22nd, 2007

Okay, I’ll take up the call for this one. People seem to wish to talk about how they would go about hunting for Bigfoot or Sasquatch. A free exchange of ideas and suggestions may assist people who want to pick up new approaches or enhance their own knowledge of searching for a real Bigfoot. I’ll undertake this exercise for the benefit of people who wish to find one place to revisit to watch an exchange grown, evolve, and take different tracks. So here goes…

Baby Bigfoot

Limiting this to real, biological examples of an unknown primate in North America, how would you go about the task to track, stalk, wait, capture, catch, kill, hold, study, release, or keep into captivity a real Bigfoot? (Yeah, against my better judgement, the kill vs no-kill camps can have at it.)

Roger Patterson

I once got a letter (remember those, the pieces of paper with markings on them that people use to send via the post office to each other) from Carlos Allende. Know him? He’s the guy who penned marginal notes to the US Navy about the Philadelphia Experiment.

Carlos wrote me years and years ago, detailing in jumbled text the best method to hunt for Bigfoot. I was suppose to go into a forest known to have Bigfoot sightings, sit on a tree trunk, entice the Bigfoot closer to me, and then let the Bigfoot sit on me so we could become friends and he’d want to come home with me.

FATE Magazine Bigfoot

Other than the feeling I was in the middle of a R. Crumb comic book scenario, I never considered trying Carlos’ methods, of course. I’ve done the sitting-on-a-tree-trunk part of it, as well as other things, as Louis Leakey suggested we all study modern great apes. In general, I’ve usually stuck to the usual wildlife and ecological techniques, but don’t let my bias (except for the flesh and blood ones) influence your comments too much. I’m interested in how you would hunt for Bigfoot.

Bob Gimlin

[However, I will delete, like a hot potato, any comments on supernatural, time-traveling, 4D, phantom Bigfoot. Not because it isn’t a possibility, but because it is not in my frame of reference of helpful suggestions for studying this subject zoologically and anthropologically here – and I am really bored with trying to explain one unknown with unknown.]

Loren Books

While you are thinking and commenting about this, please, if you want background general background on Bigfoot and support my time on this forum, pick up one of the following books on the topic. Thank you!

Cryptozoology A to Z (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1999)

Tom Slick: True Life Encounters in Cryptozoology (Fresno, CA: Craven Street-Linden Press, 2002)

Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America (NY: Paraview Pocket – Simon and Schuster, 2003)

The Field Guide to Bigfoot and Other Mystery Primates (NY: Anomalist Books, 2006)

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

72 Responses to “How Would You Hunt Bigfoot?”

  1. things-in-the-woods responds:

    Hey DWA and Mystery_man- just caught the end of this discussion here.

    The first thing that occurred to me- has anyone checked there weren’t any BFRO researchers with a sound system wandering around the woods when this guy heard a ‘gibbon call’?

    I wonder how many bf sightings are sightings of bf researchers- big hairy men running around the woods at night, a pungent odour…

  2. mystery_man responds:

    Ah right, DWA! You’re right, I suppose I should have read it more carefully. My mistake. I noticed it after I made my post, so I feel a bit foolish now. Anyway, I do find it very interesting that agibbon call of all things would produce results. I guess it has worked for them to some degree but I wonder why it is, especially when we are dealing with a large, hairy biped which is quite a differen creature from the gibbon. I’ve given some of my opinions, but it really is curious. I suppose whatever works works, but I guess we will only know if it really and truly works when it leads to them finding clearer evudence. And things-in-the-woods, I wondered that same thing myself.

  3. DWA responds:

    Legitimate point. This is one of the potential problems with call-blasting.

    The BFRO schedules its trips far in advance; I suppose a search of their site could provide some interesting info. Now that you mention it I might do that. Generally they try to penetrate remote areas, not blasting near campgrounds. I know TBRC always at least considers the possibility that other blasters were in the area, something that the relative difficulty of the task I would think makes unlikely, but certainly not impossible.

    From the report, especially from the reaction of the deer (especially considering their relative indifference to the two witnesses much closer to them, which isn’t in the part I excerpted), I would tend to think that what was causing the commotion wasn’t a person. But there’s no way to be sure. And maybe commotion from an unexpected quarter was what had the deer’s attention. You have to take all possibilities into account.

    I’m also pretty sure that recorded sounds have a wholly different timbre from live animal calls. And yes, I’m pretty sure animals can detect that difference too. Which raises the question of why call-blasting gets excited reactions from a range of animals (coyotes and owls, among others, as well as whatever-it-is).

    Maybe they just like to party. I mean, I have had ravens respond to my raven imitations.


  4. mystery_man responds:

    There are certainly a lot of possibilities as far as the gibbon calls go. It could be seen as another primate that is infriging into the Bigfoot’s territory, but we really don’t know how territorial bigfoot is likely to be. They could just be curious, but then it was not curious enough for any good footage or hard evidence to be gleaned, at least not at present and not to my knowledge. Bigfoot’s curiosity I think could explain why they are seen far more often than you would think an undiscovered large primate would be. Maybe they just like to party, which I thought was pretty funny by the way! 🙂 Perhaps it is similar to their call, but somehow “off” which gets them to thinking what the heck is going on. Maybe it just peeves them off. I highly doubt it is because they are mistaking the gibbon call for one of their own. The timbre would most likely be different due to different masses, lung capacities, ect. Then there is the possibility of subaudital frequencies that I mentioned before. And you have to consider that even calls between two similar primate species may not be compatible, so add to that the fact that this is probably quite an intelligent creature and I get the impression that a Bigfoot just wouldn’t fall for it. It apparently hasn’t so far, at least not to the degree that has been hoped. Bigfoot, if it exists, is an intelligent, bipedal creature that has evaded detection for quite awhile and falling for a relatively alien call of a gibbon just might not be keeping with its sensibilities, I feel. I just can’t get over the feeling that the calls may be instilling curiosity but in the end actually perhaps keeping them at bay or spooking them. I know the TBRC has thought this through, but that is my two cents. Animal call with any animal can be tricky, let alone a total unknown like this. It is not a technique that should be relied on too often until it proves to be more conclusive. I’m not saying they should stop as it is obvious it has gotten some results. I’m just saying that it should not be used too much for now and when it is, should maybe be used in combination with other things.

  5. DWA responds:

    Right, mystery_man. Science is the problem. 😀

    I know you didn’t say that.

    But with pretty much everything else in the North American bestiary, People Living Their Lives “made the discovery,” in most cases before science even got involved in documentation. What helped in these cases was public credulity: the people at large, acquainted with similar animals in their countries of origin, “bought” the idea that bears leave bear tracks and deer deer tracks, and that Josiah saw a wolf and a panther yesterday. There’s no frame of reference for the sas, the only animal we have that the public didn’t “buy” before photographic and video documentation became available.

    So people trying to get evidence (and understandably frustrated at the public handling of this topic) have gotten aggressive, because people “just seeing” the animal or its sign aren’t being taken seriously. This leads to intensive speculation on What Does A Bigfoot Want?, speculation largely informed by presumptions of considerable brainpower on the part of the target species. We don’t have documented sas calls, the reasoning goes, but given the smarts and curiosity that one can draw from sighting reports, and the presumption that they’re primates, maybe this will spark their interest. And since this sounds like it might actually have been a sas, the presumption is that other sas respond to it (hopefully not by separating the call-blaster’s body into its constituent components).

    I think it’s a reasonable assumption, given the volume of reports alone, that more people see these guys than see wild otters, grizzlies, cougars or wolverines. But those animals – all with European analogues – get the benefit of the public doubt. (Or really maybe I should say “the scientific doubt,” which with animals often amounts to the same thing.) The sasquatch doesn’t, meaning we have to draw him within scientific range, because no one is content with – and scarcely anyone even knows about – the surprising consistency among many eyewitness reports and track finds, all over the continent by all kinds of people, almost without exception corresponding to excellent habitat, something that generally automatically suggests to the public – and to scientists – a real animal.

  6. kittenz responds:

    I think it’s possible, even likely, that Bigfoot would come to investigate unusual noises out of pure curiosity.

  7. kittenz responds:

    The fact remains that Bigfoot will have to be found before they can be studied. I think that dogs (SAR dogs, schutzhund- or UDT-trained tracking dogs, securely leashed, of course) could be taken to areas where a recent sighting has occurred and used to track the Bigfoot. Hounds could be used, but in my opinion they would be less suitable. Hounds are hunting dogs; they are usually trained to trail specific species, and they are focused on hunting animals as prey, whereas tracking dogs are focused on the reward that they are given when they find something. The risk to the dogs and the Bigfoot would be minimal if the dogs were worked on leashes.

    Once bigfoot are found and their existence is documented, it would no longer be necessary to track them with dogs. Primatologists could then begin to study them the same way that other great apes are studied.

  8. things-in-the-woods responds:

    as i said at the very begining of this bolg, i can’t think of anything more likely to scare off a bf than tracking it with dogs.

    You suggest that we should study bf in the way primatologists do- well, you will never find a primatologist tracking their subjects with dogs- and there is a reason for that…

  9. mystery_man responds:

    Right, things-in-the-woods, that’s a good point. I don’t think Jane Goodall would ever use hounds to track chimps and it probably is not in the repertoire of gorilla researchers either. I see Kittenz’ point, but I think it would definitely spook them and drive them away. then you have the fact that Bigfoot may very well scare the bejeezus out of the dogs as well. Isn’t it well documented that dogs go crazy when they are around? And on top of that, who knows what a Bigfoot is liable to do when it is cornered? Is that a risk you would be willing to take without finding out more about your quarry? I think dogs should probably be used sparingly.

  10. DWA responds:


    I’d have to agree with others on the subject of dogs. (Yet another place where reading too many sighting reports can come in REALLY useful. :-D)

    Dogs and Bigfoot generally don’t mix. One of the most consistent facets of encounter reports between the two (other than dogs getting dismembered) is fearless, veteran dogs behaving – for the first time in the witness’s experience – like utterly craven cowards who have suddenly forgotten their masters exist. The animal – and I mean in a number of cases, I’ve read more reports of this kind than most people have read reports, total – runs ALL THE WAY HOME, and is found later under a car in the garage, under the house, UNDER something. Quivering with fear.

    And sometimes, but it’s rare, this doesn’t happen. (That’s usually when the dog gets dismembered.)

    But you want a better batting average than the apparent experience in this area shows me. Dogs’ performance in this role is, to put the best face on it, unreliable and erratic in the extreme.

    Besides which, the reasons for the dismemberment in the first place. The sasquatch considers dogs enemies, definitely not tokens of trust.

    I’d leave them out of this totally. For both species’ sake. (And dog lovers’ as well.)

    I think the sas offers us an opportunity to Start Over in zoology – an opportunity Jane Goodall actually demonstrated almost a half-century ago – and Do This The Right Way. Stop treating them like specimens to be chased, immobilized and labeled, and start treating them like fellow crew on Spaceship Earth. It would be a breath of fresh air, for sure.

    (I once saw a white wolf in Denali National Park, no more than 40 yards away, sitting so still it looked like a quartz outcrop at first. Then it moved and I saw the radio collar. Still trying to get the nasty taste out of my mouth. ‘nuf sed.)

  11. kittenz responds:

    I’m not suggesting that people continually harass and trail Bigfoot with dogs in order to find and study them. That is, indeed, not a valid way to study primates or any other animal.

    But the animals must be found and proven to exist before any researchers, anywhere, can secure the grant monies required for long-term study. And I don’t buy it that all dogs have an inherent overwhelming fear of Bigfoot. Most dogs are afraid of things they don’t know. But trained tracking dogs will track anything, just for the apparent joy they take in pleasing their handlers and the reward of a game with their special toy.

    I believe that dogs could be used, judiciously and conscientiously, to track and find Bigfoot, so that the animals’ existence is proven. The animal could be knocked down with a tranq; there are none specifically formulated for Bigfoot, of course, but veterinary technology and drugs have come a long way since the old Wild Kingdom days. Once the animals are located and their existence is beyond question, universities and governments will fight over who gets to fund research.

  12. DWA responds:

    I don’t know, kittenz.

    And I guess mystery_man’s and my posts tell you how we feel about stuff like tranqs.

    I guess that what’s harrassment is for the animal to judge, and if I were in its predicament I might be inclined to say anything is.

    I’ve said before, though, that I hope – that’s not think, that’s hope – the discovery of the animal will yield more good, for it and by extension for us, than it will harm.

    However it happens.

  13. kittenz responds:


    I agree wholeheartedly that harassing an animal in the name of science is to be avoided whenever possible. But I think that everyone here who is a realist knows that confirming an unknown animal’s existence requires that there be a body to study – whether that body is of a living creature or a dead one. I much prefer to think that someone will secure a living Bigfoot, but I don’t imagine that an awake, aware Bigfoot would be too keen on providing blood and tissue samples for testing :).

    Remember, the question posed in this topic is “how would you find Bigfoot?”, not “how would you go about studying them?”. They are so very elusive that traditional non-invasive methods do not seem to be producing results. Tracking dogs have been used with great success in finding other elusive animals, including jaguars in Central America, pumas in North America, and bears around the world.

    I agree that invasive techniques such as the use of tracking dogs and tranquilizers must be kept to a minimum. But proving that an animal exists is a first and necessary step in acquiring its protection. If invasive, but nonfatal, techniques are used simply to confirm an animal’s existence, then those techniques will have been worthwhile.

    Once Bigfoot’s existence is confirmed beyond question, the researchers can begin to study them in less invasive ways. Let’s face it, any intrusion upon an animal, however minimal, is invasive to a degree. But sometimes it’s necessary in order to gain the support necessary to try to ensure their survival.

    Assuming they exist, of course. But it’s redundant to qualify every post with that phrase.

  14. duskshade responds:

    I still think if you took a team and made it a point of having them in the field for a long period of time, that likely they will have better success than a short incursion or even a high-hide full of cameras.

    SAR dogs would be best IF you felt that dogtracking is the best route. Although canine/BF interaction normally involves a short munch by BF on the canine in question, that can be alleviated with a dog that was bred to handle that kind of attack. I would suggest a trainable gamedog, maybe a well-trained APBT with SAR training that can hold its own against a bigger creature.

    I think that no matter what, unless a person drags a BF kicking and screaming from the bush, or has a body of one, then none of mainstream media will be likely or inclined to listen.

  15. mystery_man responds:

    Kittenz- Again, tranqs have been brought up, but remember that tranquilizers are a tricky thing. As I have said before, even with known animals, the dosage has to be pretty well calculated. Too much and you could kill it, not enough and you have a whole new set of problems. Also, I think the other posters were taking your post on studying them like other primates to heart. You say “this isn’t a post on how to study Bigfoot” but you said it yourself that we should study them like we would other primates and the others are trying to say that using dogs is not fitting in with this. As for them fearing Bigfoot, there is a lot of eyewitness testimony to this effect and we still don’t know what will happen when a Bigfoot is cornered and it is hit with a badly dosed tranquilizer. I personally agree that getting a living confirmation is important but we know so little about them, that perhaps holding back on overly invasive techniques would be prudent for now. They are so elusive that even if they were found with dogs, how would we find them again? There’s no guarantee we would be able to routinely find such a shy and elusive creature. So do we use dogs again? I just think there has to be a better way, although I honestly don’t know what that way is yet. 🙂

  16. DWA responds:

    duskshade, you say:

    “I think that no matter what, unless a person drags a BF kicking and screaming from the bush, or has a body of one, then none of mainstream media will be likely or inclined to listen.”

    Actually, some of the mainstream media HAVE been listening. For a long time. My first exposure to the sas was a very balanced article in National Wildlife magazine, almost 40 years ago. Local newspapers follow up on sightings, and a surprising number of recent articles withhold judgment and avoid making a joke of it.

    I think a major reason that scientific luminaries like Goodall and Schaller think this is worthy of study is the best of the treatment by the mass media. John Bindernagel, one of the most respected researchers, had about as serious an article on this as you could want published in “Beautiful British Columbia” magazine, which doesn’t exactly consider it in its best interest making sure folks label BC as a nut farm.

    I wouldn’t justify any mistreatment of an animal by catering to mass media.

    Kittenz: I guess I really think this thing can be confirmed without guns and dogs and tranqs, and I’m hoping those approaches are tried first. If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a hundred times: let a mainstream scientist doing a mainstream hunt for this animal have the kind of encounter experience many Americans have already had, and we’re pretty much there.

  17. kittenz responds:

    I know about animals and anesthesia :). I agree, there is risk, and of course there is no universally accepted idea of what dose would be effective for a Bigfoot. And you’re right that finding Sas with dogs is no guarantee that they would be found again. I also agree that long-term field study is the best option for studying these animals.

    BUT. Long-term field studies take MONEY, and the money for those studies will not be forthcoming until the animals’ existence is proven. It’s not like funding studies for a rare rhino, for instance, where the animal is known to exist, or at least to have existed. Obtaining funding for studying known animals is hard enough, but obtaining funding for the longterm field study of unknown animals is pretty much impossible. Finding the animals, and documenting their existence beyond doubt, is the crucial first step to obtaining the financial support necessary to fund field studies.

    I’m not talking about trailing Bigfoot with hounds, or with any sort of attack dog. I’m proposing using trained search dogs, worked closely on leashes, to find the Bigfoot. I’ve worked with dogs all my life, and I am well aware of their capabilities and of their limitations. But the fact remains that dogs’ senses are many times better than our own. I’ve had wonderful German Shepherds all my life, and working with a UDT or a SCH III tracking dog is an awesome experience. They track silently, and they will track whatever you ask them to track. I’m not suggesting that the dogs be used like hounds, to actually close with the Bigfoot. But I believe that dogs could be used to find the Sas so that they can be proven to exist, once and for all, and hopefully get close enough to at least one of them to utilize some sort of capture technique.

    As for the anesthetic, the safest anesthetics are inhalation anesthetics, closely monitored in a hospital setting. But those are not usable for field work. I would think that a xylazine/ketamine/atropine injection would be quite safe; it’s an older formula, but it is safe and effective for most animals (although there are some highly inbred dogs that are sensitive to the xylazine). It’s been used, and is still used, in a wide variety of animal species, usually with no ill effect. Of course a narcotics reverser such as Narcan should be on hand, as well as portable oxygen. There’s no way to ensure completely the safety or effectiveness of any anethesia, even under the best of circumstances. But if the anesthetic did not knock the animal down, it would at least make it groggy enough to allow capture with a net. Blood and tissue samples could then be obtained. It would not be necessary to actually “take the animal into custody” to document that it exists.

    It’s true that animals occasionally die from anesthesia, even from anesthesia usually deemed safe. I would not want a Bigfoot killed, but if one was killed accidentally, it would still be documentation of their existence.

    Once Bigfoot is proven to exist, I have no doubt that the funding for long-term field studies would follow.

  18. kittenz responds:

    I’m just trying to be realistic here. Even the apes studied in longterm field studies do not willingly provide blood samples. I just do not see any other way, realistically, to get blood and other tissue samples from a Bigfoot, and to prove that they are from a Bigfoot, than to obtain the initial samples from an anesthetized living animal, or from a dead one. I can’t believe that a Bigfoot would of its own volition thrust its arm out for a tourniquet and a needle stick. And all of that is moot, anyway, until the animals are actually located.

  19. mystery_man responds:

    Well, the use of dogs is a realistic approach, Kittenz. And I think it may have to come down to that at some point. It is true that in order for anyone to want to mount a costly field research operation, one is going to have to have confirmation that it is out there to be studied. I appreciate your realistic approach to this and I suppose I am a bit unrealistic in my desire to do so in a noninvasive way. That way hasn’t worked so far, so maybe it is time to try something a little more direct such as using dogs. I can see the points you are making and in many ways I agree. We need that documentation of its existence if we expect it to be studied in a thorough way. I just would like to see it done without resorting to dogs and guns. Sigh.

  20. kittenz responds:

    I would much rather see a non-invasive approach used to find Bigfoot. Having a team of researchers live in a forest where Bigfoot are thought to be, for long enough to actually find the creatures and get good, conclusive evidence to prove to the rest of the world that they exist, would be the best approach by far – in a perfect world. But that kind of exploration research costs many thousands of dollars. Most organizations have to compete for the research dollars they get, and the sad fact is that the money is just not there to fund a long-term search for a storied, but unknown, animal. In fact, as we all know, that’s why the dedicated people who do Bigfoot research on their own time can’t just stay in the woods until they find the Bigfoot: someone has to pay their bills and feed their kids, and so they have to keep day jobs, and limit their searches for Bigfoot to their spare time.

    Unless some very wealthy individual steps forward to fund a long-term exploration (with no guarantee of success), the search for Bigfoot will probably be limited to the fragments of time that dedicated amateurs can glean from their schedules. So a more invasive method, such as the use of tracking dogs, may be a way to find the Bigfoot sooner.

    If Bigfoot are found and their existence is proven, it would not be necessary to use invasive tactics to study them, because the funding for serious research would literally pour in. So, while such methods are invasive, and it’s distasteful to consider them, if they lead to the confirmation of Bigfoot’s existence they will have been worthwhile, provided that every effort is made to ensure that the Bigfoot comes to no harm.

  21. fnesh responds:


    I would charter a helicopter (much like a police helicopter) that is outfitted with infrared heat detection (much like a police helicopter) and I would fly over expanses of land taking note of the wildlife encounterd. When I encounterd a ten foot tall ape… I would follow it, tranquilize and tag it with a GPS system using one dart. I would then organize a search using the GPS, capture the creature and consider it time for a beer. Enough said.

  22. 1Greensix responds:

    If Bigfoot exists the one thing we should all agree on is that it is an animal. It is NOT a human. It has animal instincts, animal hearing, seeing, sense of smell, sense of direction, ability to see well at night, wariness beyond human understanding, and probably almost as intelligent as human. That means it can hear you, see you, smell you, and sense your presence long before you are capable of doing the same to it. If you are going to successfully HUNT it you will need to diminish your noise, smell, and movement. Wear a cath so your pee won’t leave a lasting scent trail. Blend into the background. Wear black more than camo. If Bigfoot is black there is a reason for it. Don’t talk louder than a six inch voice (ask you second grader what that means). Don’t knock tree limbs together or hit rocks together. Bigfoots are shy animals. The sounds of rocks hitting together or limbs hitting trees, or loud yells at night are caused by other HUMANS goffing around, and not Bigfoot. They don’t make noises for no reason. Humans do those things, animals don’t. Don’t carry a gun if it has ANY gun oil on it, or any other scent, such as polish or wax on the wood. Poop into a bag, seal it and bury it. Do not leave a scent trail. Take foods that have very little scent, and eat very little of it so you won’t have to poop much. Drink water not coffee, lemonade or tea. Drink plenty of lemon water for weeks before your hunt to reduce your body odor. Walk slowly, s l o w l y. Think about how slow animal move in the woods when they are foraging. You go that slow or slower. Look continually, not just when you stop walking. Sit concealed for long periods without making noise, movement, or scent once you have what you think is a likely spot. Get real lucky and you might see something. It might not be a Bigfoot, but you should be able to see some nature you haven’t seen before.
    Think about the Patterson video. Notice the size of that creatures arms. Longer than a humans and MUCH more powerful. Why? Is it because they use their arms so much, or are their long, strong arms just a fluke of nature? I’m betting it’s because they use them so much. Therefore I would begin my hunt some place where long strong arms are needed. Higher elevations, or very rough terrain, with lots of trees would be a likely starting point.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.