For all its loopy fun, Finding Bigfoot just wouldn’t be as good without Ranae Holland, the show’s lone skeptic. She turns the show from a bunch of dudes looking for monsters in the woods into a real — and sometimes testy — conversation about what is and isn’t real. She brings a cool head, a scientist’s insistence on good evidence, and a gentle sense of humor to the proceedings, and that, plus her willingness to bum out the Bigfoot faithful, is what makes it all work so well.
During a brief break between a grueling shooting schedule in the United States and setting off for new expeditions across the Pacific, Holland was kind enough to take the time to talk to us about fluid sexuality, teaching kids to think critically, and, of course, Sasquatch.
AfterEllen.com: Thanks for taking the time to talk to me. You seem to be on a crazy busy travel schedule lately.
Ranae Holland: Yeah, I have been, but I appreciate the support from you guys, so thank you.
AE: You’re getting ready to go to Australia, is that right?
RH: Yeah, I’m doing a quick sojourn there, and New Zealand on the way, which I’ve always wanted to go to, but then heading down to the South Pacific for a few expeditions.
AE: So you’re finding yowies, then?
RH: That would be, yeah, that’s the yowie in Australia, and the Orang-Pendek in Sumatra.
AE: Cool. The Orang-Pendek is the one cryptid like that that I might actually believe is around.
RH: I’m kind of there with you in that camp, you know, when you start talking really tropical jungles and an animal that’s supposed to be considerably smaller. It’s when you start talking about bipedal megafauna that are terrestrial that I start having a little bit of difficulty wrapping my head around that. Whereas when it’s not necessarily megafauna or undiscovered flora, then we can have a discussion. It’s that nine-foot bipedal massive animal that has a population that’s all over with no tangible evidence that aired as far as shows go, that’s when I’m, like, “Come on. Work with me, big guy.”
AE: And what is the theory behind no one having found it, or at least found bones from it yet?
RH: Well, to throw the other side a bone, pardon the pun. You know, basically the oral history of North America, you know, all of those cultures and Native Americans tribes, for thousands of years, they don’t have written history, it’s oral history. Definitely all of the Pacific Coast tribes speak of the Wild Man of the Woods, Bigfoot, Bukwas, Sasquatch, Windigo, all of those names. And the majority of them do, even through the Plains. But it’s oral history. They’ll believe that the Thunderbird is a real animal too, but we don’t have these massive, gigantic bird carcasses or remains of those either. But it’s persisted, like I said, for thousands of years.
As white men came across — [Teddy] Roosevelt, Daniel Boone, they’ve written about this creature, either themselves or someone they knew very well and trusted having sightings. But then again you it comes back to this argument: Is this perhaps misrepresentation or this misidentification, or is this outright hallucination, and people weaving tall tales? And where is the evidence?
And I guess their argument is that ancestral Gigantopithecus blacki remains have been found, mostly in the area of China. It’s thought to be the top contender of what would have been a possible Sasquatch on the evolutionary tree, if you care to think in that way. Collectively, some molars and pieces of jawbones that would probably fill up a shoebox. And a lot of stuff in China that’s prehistoric has been covered in construction, and it’s just being buried or it’s all underwater. But I still feel if you have this population that’s been there for thousands of years on the North American continent — the theory says they came across the land bridge — where’s the evidence? That camp, or members of that camp will say that these are sentient creatures that are burying them, or they’re doing something with their dead, but I say cataclysmic events do happen, folks. So, I don’t know. But that’s a long debate that’s been going.
I think one of their strongest pieces is the [Patterson-Gimlin] film, and all four of us were fortunate enough to go down to California with Bob Gimlin and go to the exact spot. And I, as a skeptic myself, have no problem saying that I want to believe in Bigfoot. I just don’t have the evidence here that I can say “I believe it’s real, because the evidence is there.” However, I just love watching the P-G film because I don’t believe that Bigfoot’s real, but I can’t explain how they did that. I mean, is that a guy in a suit? But how’d they do it, then? Show me how you did it. I think there is a BBC documentary and it’s a horrible attempt. They put their top guys on it — show me how they did it.
AE: But didn’t [Oscar-winning makeup and creature artist] Rick Baker or one of his makeup associates recently claim to have made the suit in that film?
[Note: I had misremembered that story. It was makeup artist John Chambers who was rumored to be associated with the suit. Chambers denies it, but apparently director John Landis has confirmed that rumor. Chambers is perhaps best known for his groundbreaking creature and makeup work on — Oh, dear — Planet of the Apes. – AD]
RH: It’s so interesting, because it goes back and forth. Someone will come forward and then somebody will show that they really didn’t. And there was a gentleman who who was affiliated in some way with Patterson and Gimlin who said he was the guy in the suit, and it turned out that he was discredited for the most part.
Here’s what it comes down to: It is arguably one of the most controversial pieces of footage. Right up there with the Zapruder film and the man on the moon. And there are people who don’t think man walked on the moon, and there are people who don’t think that Kennedy was shot by one man, and there are people who do and don’t believe that that is or is not an animal. And those three things were all shot around the same time, within a matter of a few years. And those films are all controversial and talked about to this day. We’re still arguing. And I would like to say let’s talk about it. We can discuss it rationally and respectfully. But I’m just fascinated by how to this day it persists.
This whole crazy adventure that I’m on really began because I as a little kid back in the ’70s was watching Bigfoot shows and the Patterson-Gimlin film and In Search Of… with my dad, and that was our special time. And then I move out to Washington State and became a research biologist, and then he passed, and I have vivid memories of that special time together. And I wanted Bigfoot stories where I did fieldwork, and that’s how I met Matt[Moneymaker, of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization].
And then many years later, on a break from contracting at NOAA [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], I was supposed to be heading back to school, and I had this opportunity and I ran with it.
To be quite frank, this is in honor of my dad’s memory. And that only lasted so far, because it’s entertainment. It’s not, for me, true science. But before the first season wrapped, I’d see 6 to11-year-olds at the town hall meetings with their dads in the front row with the guys, and I’m like “Oh, my gosh, that was me 30 years ago.” It continued. This isn’t about me anymore. This isn’t about me and my dad anymore. This is about, wow, these little — maybe these little future scientists, or these kids who want to believe, and they’re in that explorative “I can be anything” phase, and think it might be possible.
I am all about making sure that these kids can learn that they can be objective, critical thinkers. And then get them going there, but then also talking from a place of respect and tolerance. Listen to other ideas. I mean, this is what makes you a better person. If we surround ourselves with people who think like us, then how are we going to learn and challenge ourselves?
So when parents come up to me and tell me that their 9-year-old put down his Xbox and he goes out in the woods, well, there you go. I’m on board. I question myself: “What am I doing? It’s 22 degrees, I’m eating the worst food possible, I’m surrounded a lot of times with people that normally I don’t agree with (but I can still respect), It’s cold, I’m tired, what am I doing?” And then I hear those stories. That’s why I’m doing it.
AE: You’re in what seems like an awful position of having to essentially poke holes in these guys’ religion every week. How do you find a balance between standing your ground and maintaining a friendly working relationship with people you have to spend a lot of time with and regularly disappoint?
RH: It’s a difficult position, a challenging position. You know, you go on the road, and there are four of us. We are four passionate personalities, strong-willed people. And you have two who say that they’ve seen Bigfoot. That they’ve actually seen one. Cliff believes that Bigfoot is real based on a culmination of evidence for him. Myself, the evidence isn’t there. I don’t believe.
And I think when you put four eccentric people together like a family, with the amount of hours we put into the show, of course we’re going to have our arguments and disagree. But I am hoping that if anything, that the way I can communicate not only with the guys, but with the witnesses. To show somebody that they might watch me week in, week out — there are definitely people who can’t stand me, because they say “Oh, she doesn’t believe. What is she doing on the show?” You know, I’m fascinated. I want Bigfoot to be real. That little 10-year-old girl inside me wants to be a believer. But I’m not just going to be a lemming and drink the Kool-Aid, OK? What is this that happened to you?
So I think the important thing is I’m approaching this in a way that the average person who sits on their couch who hasn’t seen a Bigfoot is going to ask the same questions that I am. But I want to be able to talk to that witness and say to them, “I’m not saying you’re crazy. You had your experience, but I didn’t. What happened to you? Help me understand.”
It doesn’t need to be an attack. And unfortunately, our society today is so polarized, especially in our politics, that we don’t listen to each other anymore. And I find that — I believe the children are our future. [Laughs] I want kids to have role models that you can talk about things and disagree and not attack each other. And just listen.
If we just have a monoculture and we stay there, we don’t grow. I’m very supportive of traveling and learning about other cultures and other opinions and personalities. That makes you a more well rounded person.
AE: The guys on the show talk a lot about trying to convert you into a believer. Do you feel like you’ve made any headway in getting them to think a little more skeptically?
RH: I think at times. It will come and go. There are times when they’ll understand, and they’ll go “OK, yeah.” Or I might say to them, “You guys, if you’re talking to your witness, be conscious not to say ‘Did it walk hunched over? Were its arms beyond the knees?'” You’re leading your witness and if anything, all that does is detract from your point. When you do that, and you’ve led your witness, I can’t put credibility in it. I step back and say, “That witness was led,” unintentionally or not.
And they’ll be like, “Oh, hey, good point.” I think Cliff has picked that up the most. He’ll say, “Can you describe its head? Can you describe this?” And so it’s interesting, because we mix it up who interviews who, so we’ll be there at times when I’m trying to say, “Can you tell me how it walked?” And finally we’ll say “Look, we don’t want to lead you; we want you to describe it. We’re looking for certain clues, but we need to hear it from you first.” And we’ll keep asking that same question. And at times we’ll slip.
I don’t I think, well, first of all, that’s really sweet of them to say the want to indoctrinate me. And I always say to them, “OK, show me.” I want to see these things. I want see these glowing red eyes. I want to hear this concussive growl that could not be a person and couldn’t be another animal. I need that to come on board, to change my opinion. But it isn’t them that would do that, in essence. It would be the experience. If they’re able to get me to that experience, so be it. Well, that’s why I went around the woods in the dark.
Literally in the dark. And people ask, “Are you worried about something?” or “Are you ever afraid?” To be frank, a group of people, a small handful of us — usually there’s at least two of us, a cameraman, and a producer, so I’m in a group of four unless I can get a Zaxcom [sound transmitter] on me and I can walk away ahead into the dark. I’m not concerned about making enough noise to some degree that I wouldn’t be startling a bear or a cougar. My other concern would be would be with people who shouldn’t be out in the woods, and we’re already a bit of a group.
I’m mostly worried about poking myself in the eye with a stick or falling in a hole. People have a misconception with the night vision cameras. They say, “You’re sitting up in the tree, but you’ve got these lights on!” And they’re clueless! They don’t understand that it’s an infrared light. So if you were sitting there with me in that tree, you don’t see that infrared light. Our eyes don’t pick that up. So we truly are walking around in the dark. I’m sure there are hilarious outtakes somewhere of us walking into something — like a branch will come through and — Oof! — and we’re cursing those backpacks. You’re trying to walk up a hill through this brush, and it’s undercover, and that little bar that holds the camera gets stuck on it.
I remember one time, I think it was in Arizona. It was a beautiful night and there was ambient light from the moonglow, but I was just, like, “Give me two minutes here,” And I was just kicking the dirt and yelling because I was so frustrated with the backpacks. It has a tendency to get caught up on things.
AE: Has there been an incident that made you move a little closer to thinking there’s a ‘Squatch in those woods?
RH: Absolutely. You know, there are those nights when you’re just in the right type of place, and you put yourself in the mindset of those stories that you’ve read and the guys like to say “It looks so Squatchy here,” and I’m like, “Oooh,” you know? I’m here to be — I’m educated in the natural sciences; here’s my background. But obviously there’s this part of me that is open-minded and wants to believe and wants that experience and loves the idea of it. I’m out here — so there you are, it’s dark, you’re walking down this road, and you’re trying to do these things, and you’re listening.
As far as what has aired so far, there is an expedition into Oregon when we were making calls back and forth — I won’t take too much time to describe it — but we heard this, what I could best describe, it sure sounded organic to me. It did not sound like a recording or anything. And its origin was up a creek draw which had no roads, and it would be difficult for someone to hike in there. Because in order to carry the volume and the distance it traveled to us, where we were recording it from, it would have had quite an amplitude to it. And it sounds supposedly like what these Sasquatch calls are. Now could it have been a coyote, a wolf, or something else? That exact sample, which I haven’t had access to in a long time, would need to go to a specialist and have them say, “Can this be something else.” But it was the best experience, aurally, that I’ve had to date, because I’m like, “Wow, that was creepy.” And my cameraman was a guy who, when we were going to be anywhere, he was always going to follow my lead, and when he saw me do that and get all nervous, he was like “Whoah! What’s going on?!” So I was like, “Wow, that was nice.”
And then when we were in California and I saw — I see eyeshine all the time. But this eyeshine, the size that it was was impressive. Because of the distance it was at, it was difficult to gauge. There was no scale, to line it up against. So could it have been one of the larger owl species? People don’t understand that the larger owl species have eyes almost the same size as a human. But because they have the tapetum lucidum, which gives them the ability to see in the dark and reflects light so much, their eyeshine will glow much larger than humans. So when you see that at a distance, it’s going to seem bigger than a person. And they have their glabella, which is the space between the eyes, kind of the brow area — their eyes are spaced farther apart, proportionally, than a human being’s. So you see an owl and night, with eyeshine it can seem bigger than a person, is what I’m trying to convey. With the right reflection, the eyes shining — you put those factors together, it can seem like a monster.
So was that an owl? I’m not going to know. But we went over to that location, and here were these huge, green glowing eyes. They were yards away. More than 40 yards away. We walked up to that area, and we had been hearing whistles all night long. I think Cliff wanted to whistle one more time, and a rock — a large rock, probably bigger than my hand — got thrown at the tree that was right next to us and then we heard it roll down the hill, and we were like, “OK, that was pretty awesome. That was pretty cool.” Did that change my mind, right there, that Bigfoot is real? No. But that’s a person who went to great lengths, and did not move for a long time, they have night vision camera. They were stealthy as all hell, and they did it cunningly. And they did not create that eyeshine. There’s no way. Because they couldn’t climb the tree, and I would have seen. So, it’s pretty cool. I need an experience that’s definitive to say I believe.
And there are ones that haven’t aired. We’ve had some fun, exciting stuff. You’ll have to watch, Ali. You’ll just have to stay tuned for those adventures.
AE: I’m a fellow skeptic, but I have to ask: Do you have a protocol for if one of you actually runs into a Sasquatch?
RH: We don’t have an official protocol, because, in the heat of the moment, I think we’re all so strong-willed that I can’t — You know, when I first came on in Season 1, I was like “We should have a protocol for these things.” And they all just kind of looked at me and rolled their eyes. That ain’t gonna happen. So I think everybody maybe has their personal protocol.
Because when we were filming the North Carolina episode — we’re not supposed to run at it. We have two teams, and we each have thermal imaging cameras. And Matt caught one, and he went running at it. And we were all frustrated, because we’re not supposed to do that. Because we had a camera, the other team, and we could have come around behind it and ruled out if it was a person or not. (I believe it was a person.)
And so the question becomes not so much protocol, but what would I do? You know, what are the conditions? Here’s what people don’t understand: If you’re looking at something through a thermal imaging camera, and it’s dark, and you try to run at it, you can’t look at it and run.
First of all, the thermal imaging camera messes with your vision. And then when you look up and you’re not looking at the camera anymore, you kind of have burns in your eyes a little bit. Because it takes about 20 minutes for your eyes to acclimate to the darkness. You can actually see surprisingly well. Even in pitch black, if you learn to walk the right way, you can actually walk around in the dark fairly well if you’re patient and you know what you’re doing. But if you have a thermal camera, and you’re looking through that and then you look up — you’re kind of blinded. So to go sprinting at it is not really —
Let’s just say it were somewhat fortunate lighting conditions. If it were my personal call, I would go busting after it. Because I would want to run it down. I’d want to know! And if I got a swing, if I got a good grab at it, I’d try to yank at that costume. Or I would at least want a hair sample — try to pull it out just right so I could get the follicle attached and we could do some true DNA work on it.
Oh, I’m going after it. There’s no way I’m not. I’m not going to get that close — I mean, if there’s an opportunity where you can go around behind it, and now let’s move in — but no way. Let’s just play devil’s advocate and say it’s real. It’s my one opportunity: Carpe Diem. I’m going. I’m going in.
AE: If you did find something that looked promising, whatever area you were in would immediately be full of hunters, trappers, and aspiring dissectors. What would you do to protect it if you found something?
RH: Well, the one thing I’ve learned from my experiences here is that the Bigfoot community is a subculture in and of itself, and within that subculture there are all these different groups. And I intentionally stay removed, because I want to remain objective. I know the science part of it; I know people who believe. But I don’t want to be completely entrenched with them. Otherwise, I’m totally biased and have completely lost all objectivity. And then there are people in these camps who kind of attack each other. Some people think it’s an animal, some people believe it’s an alien, some people believe it’s a shapeshifter, it’s psychic — It runs the gamut. There are people who want to kill it, people who say they’ve killed it.
First of all, I believe — If something were to happen and I believed this animal was real, — If we’re just going to, again, play devil’s advocate: Bigfoot is real; it’s an animal — I would assume that it would be such a small population that you would need to protect it. I would not promote the killing of some endangered species. Let alone there would be the whole question of what exactly is it, and how close to humanity is that? The philosophical and sociological questions that spin off from there are innumerable. And so I would not believe in hunting them in a predatory sort of way.
AE: But would you on the show have a plan to obscure where you had been to keep that from happening?
RH: Oh, I see! Yeah, we already are in that process lots of times. We had one witness who came forward, and we blurred her face because of her husband’s type of work. It was interesting to see in the media how they gave them a hard time. I completely understand that, and we’ve had people come forward — at times we’ve used full names, and I don’t think we should. People who want to don’t come forward, because they might say they have activity or things have happened on their property, and they get inundated.
From a production standpoint, we’ve been trying to get feedback that we need to take — we need to be more proactive in protecting our witnesses. Because it already does exist to some degree. We definitely already go to lengths to obscure where we’re going for our night investigations. We want people to think we might be going to one location and we’ll go to another. People try to hoax us. We’ll get bogies in the woods. Everybody wants to hoax us. Which is kind of a double-edged sword — as the show gets more attention, we get more people are trying to hoax us, so that can be difficult.
But, yes, we definitely want to protect our witness locations, and we want to protect locations where we’ve done work, and also where we’re going to be going.
AE: As you say, the show seems to be really taking off this season. How are you dealing with suddenly being a recognizable public figure?
RH: This is minute 14, Andy Warhol, as far as I’m concerned. Like I said, this started out with a very special personal connection with my father and his memory. And now, to me, it is definitely about connecting to kids and getting them outdoors and thinking for themselves. And learning not only how to think, but also how to communicate. So basically, I have my field gear. I have two loves: The environment and music. So normally when I’m out in the field, which I’ve always done, contracting for NOAA, I sort of wear a lot of the same stuff. But when I’m out on the street, my hair is different, I don’t have glasses on, and hopefully a different outfit where I don’t get recognized. So this is my revert to Clark Kent theory. It doesn’t always work. It probably does for the most part.
You know, it’s odd. I did not seek this out; it happened organically. I’m not an actor. I really am a biologist. I don’t just play one on television. And if people come forward and they’ve seen show — It’s interesting. People who approach me come in two varieties. I look at the people who come forward — they’ve have had their experience or they want to tell me about a place to look. And I will reach out to them and I will hear them, but I also want to say, respectfully, “I don’t believe in Sasquatch. I want to; I don’t. You’ve had this experience. You should share this with the BFRO, you should let Cliff know,” and kind of redirect them a little bit.
And the other variety is the people who are acknowledging, “Hey, I’m totally with you. I’m Team Skeptic.” Or “I need more too. It’s a great idea.” But a lot of it is the parents saying “Hey, me and my family go out Squatching together. Me and my kids.” And it’s become this — nothing warms my heart more than when I hear from a family telling me that they all get together on Sunday nights and they start having a conversation and watch the show together. Or their kids are so excited and they’re making a Bigfoot Valentine box, or Bigfoot-themed birthday party, and the kids are all getting out, and are going out in the woods.
And it’s twofold: Kids are going out into the woods! It’s threefold — families are sitting down together and talking. People are thinking and talking about something. I love it! I mean, it’s like 30 — Well, let’s not do the math here too much, but 30-some years ago, sitting with my dad watching that P-G film, thinking, “What is that? Do you really think there is some undiscovered population of 8-foot animals walking around the woods that we haven’t found yet? Do you really think that could happen?” I mean, we’re talking.
And now, here it is, parents are doing that with the next generation and talking. I just love that it really is bringing families together still and kids are thinking for themselves and getting outside. I couldn’t be happier.
AE: You’re out and identify as fluid, is that correct?
RH: Yes. That is an interesting thing for you: I can talk to anybody. I am definitely the type of person that if you walk me into a location where I don’t know a soul, I’m going to leave with a friend. That’s just who I am. I don’t know why — I think that’s part of my dad.
But I thought that coming out in the gay press was the very first time that I ever had a hard time. The reason is, you do it once, and you really have to identify something that you just shouldn’t even have to think about. But, yeah, I identify that LGBTQ is a part of me, and that’s enough for me. But it’s interesting, because I don’t find it necessary to define it. My innate sense is first be sad that I even have to discuss it and define it, that it even is a question. But I understand that with bullying of gay youth, that they need people who say, ” I am, and it’s fine.” But you may not be aware: In the media, I was given a hard time by a heterophobic lesbian mother because I wouldn’t make it a platform.
And to me, I believe that our sexuality falls along a continuum. It’s one characteristic in a multidimensional construct that encompasses your self-identity. People can argue there’s your gender, there’s your sexuality, there’s — Sexuality doesn’t define me. As a person, not just as far as who I date, but who I am. My self-identity is almost — I guess what I’m trying to say, my belief is that LGBTQ rights are basic civil rights, and they’re moral values, end of story.
Life is comprised of a multitude of continuums. Sexuality is one part of it. It’s really about societal norms. Unfortunately, it’s a constant battle because humans, by nature, we seek out similar people. The problem that arises is our innate fear of people who are different. Whether it’s origin, religion, personal beliefs, habits, language, orientation — And we group. It’s xenophobia: We group usually with what’s alike. And this is why I think we need to challenge ourselves. Like I said in our conversation earlier. I very much feel that when we raise our children, we need to raise them to be independent, to think for themselves. They need to be secure enough so they can speak. They need to be educated enough that they can speak articulately, and they need to be compassionate enough to be able to listen to others.
And our society, I wish we could embrace that more, because that runs the gamut. Like I said, I’m all things. People have different personalities, different religions, different cultures, different languages. Different habits, for that matter. I ultimately shouldn’t have to hide a sexual orientation. Romantic love is something that we’re all entitled to. And we shouldn’t have to hide it as a part of the human condition. And denying that to someone else, and making them suppress it is, I still believe, incomprehensible.
And it all falls into this larger picture: People have been asking me what I think about bullying. And I basically feel — I want to back that up and just say that all of those parts that make a person who they are, like I addressed earlier: I’m a person. I’m myself. I’m Ranae. And I’m going super personal here, Ali, and I feel comfortable saying this: When I came out, I had fears about telling people, who I could and couldn’t tell. And this was many years ago. But I remember my grandmother saying, “She’s still Ranae.” And my grandmother, is a very — I come from a very Christian family, and she made her statement how she interpreted her religion to be. I’m still Ranae. It doesn’t make a difference.
So my identity, how I see myself is: I’m myself. Who I love is about the person. I identify as a research biologist. My loves are conservation and music. And that’s what kind of brings me up. And then there are other, smaller pieces of my personality, my habits, but that’s how I kind of see myself. So when someone wants to out me as a “lesbian biologist,” I kind of go, “Well, you obviously aren’t comfortable with just letting me be who I am. That’s fine if you need to identify me that way.” But to bring it all full circle, I believe sexuality is fluid. And, yeah, I am a biologist. All right: You can lock me in on that one. [Laughs] I joke that I’m a bi-ologist.
I’m going to come up with an app, and I shake it, and ask how gay I am today. “Today I’m 87%!” And then I meet this woman that I’m mad crazy about: 99.3 % gay! I went on a little tangent there for you. It’s interesting because there are so many threads that run through that.
AE: It’s not even really a continuum. It’s a smear. And it’s nice that it’s a smear.
RH: Yeah, and you think about — The thing about coming back to constantly challeging yourself is that I’m even, where I fall in this sexuality and gender identification, and all that it is, is people want to lock me in because I’m six foot and it happens to be the last few years I have short hair, and I have broad shoulders. And people will identify me more — if I’m in a relationship and dating a woman — more on that than who I am. You’re basing me on my physical build? There are all those pieces of it. There’s your gender, there’s your sexual orientation. It goes on and on. I just have to say that knowing myself and my coming to terms with my sexuality and coming to terms with who I am and coming out, you really need to know yourself. For the youth of today, my heart — I’m just floored. We have these kids who are coming out in high school! Or in junior high. And these kids are contacting me and thanking me, and I’m like “You’re my hero.”
And things that I say to my peers, to my friends in the gay community, unfortunately that is a constant conversation. Right now, things maybe things will be good, maybe things will be positive. Things were pretty good in the early ’90s, and then we fell backwards and we have the Mars Hill church — and certain religions were definitely — As much as it is to say that we all have our continuums, or smears, if you will, I won’t attack Christians. Just as much as I don’t think that all Christians will attack me because of who I am, and I believe that the same way. But there were certain folks who have unfortunately been Christians who were definitely attacking us in the Seattle area. And it was a conversation I had even within with my family. It’s like we’re in this pendulum of it’s becoming negative again, and we need to stand up. Seeing these kids coming out in junior high school, I’m in awe of them.
AE: You spend days at a time living outdoors for the show. In the unlikely event that a lesbian should wish to go camping, what are your best tips?
RH: Wow. Pardon me, I’m going to need to narrow this down a little bit. Do you mean to what location should they go? What they should carry in a pack?
AE: Your top tips for preparing to go out in the woods.
RH: What I would pack? Oh, my gosh. This could be a whole side thing here. I have to say, if we could do a follow-up some other time, I would gladly give you recommendations for gear. Besides, I’m updating my website to have a blog that is going to have a focus on those kind of recommendations, because I get asked that all the time: “Your legs are three feet long. Where do you get your field gear?” So I am— I’m a field gear whore. You have to be prepared, obviously, with what type of gear, and then location. And then, are you car camping? Are you back country? Are you day hiking? Are you wanting to oversee vistas, or are you wanting to do technical hikes just for that?
I came home and on my first day I went on a hike, which is weird because I’m camping and hiking all the time, and I did a hike when I got back. And my friends were like, “Why?” And I said, “I’ve been in the South and on the East Coast, and it’s totally different here in the West. I miss these hard hikes.” I was like “Take me out. That’s what I want to do.”
Interestingly enough, just a sidebar: This guy who was an apocalyptic survivalist who was crazy had murdered his wife and daughter, unbeknownst to me, and had built a bunker up on the side of this ridge that I went hiking on, and like two days later it was closed, and he was in the bunker. My friends were like, “Hey, Ranae, you went up Rattlesnake Ridge?” It’s this 11-mile hike. “Yeah, why?” and then they sent me the article. Oh, my gosh, really? Sidebar over.
But I think that would be a follow-up conversation. E-mail me or something. There’s so much — it’s really “what do you want out of your experience?” Are you going to go kayaking? Are you going to go climbing? What type of experience do you want? Are you going to go up to hot tubs and go snow camping and lobster pot it back and forth?
AE: Clearly we need to trick you into writing a column for us.
RH: I don’t think that would be fun.
AE: At any rate, we should do a follow-up after I’ve looked up all the camping vocabulary you’ve just used.
RH: Absolutely. I would be game for that.
AE: Is there anything you wish I’d asked you?
RH: No, you were very thorough. The only thing is, for me, I think the most important thing that’s understood is that I don’t believe. I truly am fascinated by the phenomenon of what it is. It started out as grabbing this tiger’s tail, and even starting it really did begin with this relationship and kind of a salute to my dad’s memory. And now it has grown into a connection with the kids.
New episodes of Finding Bigfoot are set to start airing soon on Animal Planet, Sunday nights at 10:00 Eastern/Pacific.
