Why can Game Wardens Sneak onto your property? Open Fields Doctrine

The Open Fields Doctrine allows game wardens and other law-enforcement officers to enter private land without a warrant, probable cause, or the landowner’s permission—and in this episode, I explain why the Supreme Court got it wrong. I break down the major court decisions that created and expanded the doctrine, examine the constitutional arguments behind them, and explain why private land should not lose Fourth Amendment protection simply because it sits outside the immediate area surrounding a home. At the end, I discuss what hunters, landowners, and state lawmakers can do to challenge these warrantless searches and restore meaningful property rights.

Rack Junkies and the hunting news

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Welcome to the Rack Junkies Podcast. I do not have video today because I've got some things messed up and I'm starting over. However, today we're going to be going over the open fields doctrine. I've read all the Supreme Court cases, the decisions. You know, obviously I've read I've read the Fourth Amendment numerous times, but I went back over it. I want to explain why it's here, what we can do about it, and go over it. It kind of simplifies some of the more hard to understand details because this gets really, really uh not just confusing, but it it's really it's one of the crazier things going on in our country when it comes to our freedom. And I posted about it um just recently, just actually yesterday, and it blew up. I mean 10 million views. Wrote about it again today, another million views. People are very interested. I had three state representatives from different states, um, well, uh outside of Ohio. I talked to some people here in Ohio as well, about open fields doctrine. There is a real desire to fix this problem. And to uh I had I had one state legislator actually call me and goes, um, so what do we do about this? I'm like, dude, you're the guy making the laws. Like, what are you talking about? Like, pass a law. Like you do, this is your job. Like, your job is I'm shining a light on it. I'm the media, and your job is to fix it because there's so much social pressure against you. Uh, you know, the reason this all came down was Pennsylvania just had a uh a Supreme Court 7-0 decision come down uh against effectively ending um open fields doctrine in Pennsylvania. Um, now let me let me get into the details of this because some people might not even understand what open fields doctrine is. So let me give a brief overview to start, and then we'll get into the Fourth Amendment. I will basically take this complex thing, and I've I've been reading all day long. I have it broke down very easily to understand. So open fields doctrine 101. Basically, a game warden or a police officer can come onto your property. Okay, they can't come into your house because the Fourth Amendment, they need a warrant to come into your house, right? Well, that does not apply to your property. But why? Well, at the time of the founding, it did. And there's some Supreme Court cases in 1924, 1984, we're gonna go over as to how we got here. But it was very much intended that you weren't just allowed to walk on people's land without a warrant, right? Like, like I think when you hear that game wardens and police officers can just hide on your property, put surveillance cameras on your property, and try to catch you doing something wrong. What about that sounds like America? Like at all? Ask yourself that. Does that sound like what we're doing in this, what we what we do in this country? I mean, I know our freedoms have been have been eroded, but I mean, we there are certain things, there are certain lines we just don't cross. And uh, this is one where it's just been crossed so egregiously, most people don't recognize it. Um, it goes all the way back to prohibition um and the founding. So we're gonna we're gonna take this on from the beginning. I I gave you a brief overview. Okay, that's a that's a dumbed-down version of it. Gay wardens can do whatever they want, right? They can come on, try and catch you breaking the law on your property, as long as it's not your house or the cartilage, which is the area directly surrounding your house. They're not allowed to come there. Um, even if your property is posted. Now, back to the the Pennsylvania decision here, real quick. Uh the Pennsylvania decision, it was very similar to what happened in Tennessee. So game wardens came on, they put they put cameras on people's property, and then they're like trying to catch them doing things wrong, and then they sue, and then the whole thing gets uh stripped right by by by the state. Uh as it should be, right, rightfully so. Uh in Tennessee, this was back, this is just a few years ago. They lost their public, uh they they they literally put trocams on a guy's property to catch him, trying to catch him poaching. And when that went through the courts, the courts shut it down. Same thing, exact same thing. There's a hunt club in Pennsylvania. They put cameras up on one of their their properties. They, I believe they trespassed on that property 22 times without a warrant, um, hiding, hiding out, looking for people, trying to catch them. They put uh they put a trail cam in one area to try to catch them illegally baiting elk was was what they tried to do. Now, you just can't do that. You don't just get to just come onto my property and do that. So why are they allowed? How are they getting away with this? Well, the first thing you need to understand before you can understand the Supreme Court documents is the Fourth Amendment, right? We all know about the Fourth Amendment, you know, unreasonable search and seizure, but that's what most people know about it, right? You need a warrant. Do you have a do you have a warrant? You can't search my vehicle, you can't search my house. But let's let let me read, because I have pulled up here the actual text of the Fourth Amendment. This is important because there's two words that were completely taking it out of context. The Supreme Court cases just completely negate half of the Fourth Amendment to get this open fields doctrine. And I I want to explain that so people can have a real understanding of this, not just an I want people to have an intelligent understanding of this. And and by the way, I didn't, I I knew the basics, obviously, like I think a lot of you guys probably do too, but I didn't fully understand how we got here. And I think it's important with the push that's now being made to end open fields across the country. I think that this is important. So let me just read the Fourth Amendment real quick. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. And no warrant shall be issued but upon probable cause, supposed uh supported by oath of affirmation and particularly describing the place it, the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Okay. So there's there's a couple of things there. The right of the people uh to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. That's the first part that we need to understand because this is where the Supreme Court goes here, right? You are secure, you are secure for unreasonable search and seizure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects. The word effects is where this gets a little squirrely. All right. And we're gonna go over this for this is the first case I'm laying out is the weakest case. And I think you guys are all gonna agree with me that open fields of doctrine should should not be allowed. But but we're gonna go over each. There's multiple reasons that these Supreme Court decisions were absolutely insane, ridiculous, don't make any sense at all. And those judges should be ashamed of themselves for just some of the worst decisions. Okay, so there's four things there. So, in the first, let me get over to my notes. I have tons of notes here today. I normally don't do things quite like this, but I'm uh I'm trying to write everything out so I can stay on track and be a better podcaster for you guys. My writing, I write short form, but I think that the long form stuff is important and it is a skill I need to improve upon. So I'm trying to become a better podcaster, more entertaining, more accurate, more uh, you know, hold your attention, teach people things better. Um, so bear with me. If you think I'm doing a good job or bad job, let me know. I'm I'm I'm but I I think I'm getting better. I think I'm I'm continually getting better. So I continual improvement. So decisions. Two, there's two decisions. There's Hester versus United States and Oliver versus United States. Hester versus United States was first, 1924. Okay, so basically this was during Prohibition. There was a guy selling moonshine. The uh police officers snuck onto his property, sat there, caught him selling moonshine, ran off. You know, the guy ran off and they went and they got it. Okay. This is this is the least uh important. This the second one's more important, but I this is this is uh it's important to understand because this is the word where the word effects comes in. Uh so they snuck on the land, and basically the whole court decision, there was no dissent in this one. Uh I looked for it. There's no dissent in this Supreme Court uh Hester versus United States. Basically, what they said was that you're secure in four things, right? We just read that. Persons, houses, papers, and effects. Well, what they're saying is that the word effects does not mean your property. That's what this whole thing hinges on. Is that because the word is effects and not property, you you don't have a right to privacy on your own property because it's not one of your effects. Now, at the time, actually, I'm gonna have to probably scoot on because I I I know I have um this part later on my note. I I I think I actually kind of because I I want to do, I want to make a little audible here. Because back at the beginning, uh, when the Constitution was written, the word effects, oh here it is. Uh the word effects 1971. I'm actually not gonna, I'm actually not gonna do that. I paused it and looked at my notes. I'm I'm gonna go straight to the Oliver versus United States. Uh it's we'll we'll get into that in a minute. I I wrote my notes in a way for for a reason. The the that first decision said that they could break onto your property because effects don't mean property. That was the whole thing. The decision is very short. There's almost nothing there. It kind of left the open fields doctrine into a gray area for a period of uh 60 years till 1984. That's when we have Oliver versus United States. This is when it this is when it gets this is where it gets really interesting. I think people like it. This is a uh uh Kentucky. Uh the police snuck onto Oliver's land to look for weed, right? The dude, the dude was growing weed. Uh again, prohibition on weed. We don't really think weed is, you know, you can smoke weed now, it's it's legal um most places. Uh, you know, regardless of your opinions on alcohol and weed, uh, I don't think that my freedom matters. I don't think that I should be allowed to tell other people what to do with their lives. You know, that's that's what freedom is. You know, you you can make wrong decisions. If you think that drinking's bad, listen, there's negative effects to drinking. There's negative effects to smoking weed. There's negative effects to eating bad food. All those little Debis that us hunters eat in the tree stands, those aren't good for us either. I don't care if it's not good for you. You get to make those decisions. That's what freedom is. It's also the freedom to make bad decisions. So if I think that weed or drinking is a bad decision, that doesn't matter. You don't get to take away my freedom because you think you know how to live my life better than me. That's the whole point of this country. Like that was the whole thing, like, read the founding documents. You'll see it. It's all right there. We all we all know these things. And even if I think that uh, you know, smoking weed and drinking is bad for you, you still get to do it. But but both of these decisions came. One was during when you know prohibition on alcohol, the other's broke prohibition on weed, and they're they're basically saying, hey, we have to be able to sneak onto your property, we have to be able to do this, we have to be able to stop you because we know how to run your life better than you. Even if they're right, it doesn't matter. It's freedom. Okay. I care more about my freedom than I do about somebody ruining their life smoking weed. You can do that. That's fine. You you do that. I'm not gonna do it. You do that. You know, I care more about my freedom than I care about my neighbor poaching a deer, shooting an extra. Even if they shoot a giant buck on the next property, I still care about my freedom way more. If they shoot every deer on my every deer on the surrounding properties in poach, I still care about my freedom more. I do. That's uh maybe, maybe, maybe some people disagree. Um, plus, if they're shooting all the deer, you know what you can possibly do? Uh report them, they can get a warrant, and then they can go catch the poacher, you know, like the constitution intended. So let's move on. So basically, uh again, prohibition on weed. Oliver, you know, the police snuck onto his property. This was a 6-3 decision. Uh Justice Powell actually wrote the decision. Uh the the land outside, the home, and its cartilage are not the house or effect. That's what he said. So the problem here, and this is what I almost got to, and I kind of backtracked a little bit, is that when it says the word effect, this is not relying on what the founding fathers had said the word effect meant. Because in the original version, the original draft of the constitution, if we're going to look at what um the founding fathers actually meant when they when they wrote the constitution, which is uh that's how I look at the constitution, what was meant at the time. Sorry, I had to find the quote from James Madison here. I had to pause that again. Um, the the James Madison in the original draft, James James Madison wrote proposed protections for this is the quote, this is what was in it, their persons, the same, their house, their papers, and other properties, right? So so in the original, they they said other pro they were specific to say properties. James Madison originally, very specifically in the Fourth Amendment, 1971, specifically said properties. Now, when the final draft came out, it said effects. So which which definition of the word effects are you going to use? The one that the founding fathers were talking about? Or are you gonna take what the uh the the Supreme Court justices decided? That they took a dictionary definition, the Samuel Johnson definitionary if I can talk, Samuel Johnson's dictionary definition to say that effects is does not mean land, right? So so so you have these two competing ideas of what the word effects mean. The guy who wrote the Fourth Amendment initially didn't even use the word effects, he used properties, other properties. It was there. He said it. We know what he meant by this. So the mental gymnastics that it took by the Supreme Court to say, oh, he needs, he, he, he, what, well, you know, he didn't mean properties. He even originally said properties. That's the original draft. What do we uh we know what he meant? He said it. He wrote it down. We have it. I understand that, you know, the law that is passed is the law that is passed, and you have to determine things by the letter of the law, but you don't get to rewrite the word effects and say, well, we're just gonna use the definition at a time period when we want it. We're just gonna make that up. We're gonna make up the time period. The definition of this word means something else, you know, a hundred years later. So we'll just go with that one. Or you could go with what the founding fathers wanted, what James Madison originally wrote it. He meant it as properties. They did not want, think about the founding of this country for a minute. Just, just, just think about that whole time period, you know, obviously with the craziness going on from overseas, and you know, we're forming this country and we're declaring independence, and we're literally fighting to keep government from being able to tell us what to do. We're keeping them off of our property, we're keeping them from taking a 1% tax, right? Like, you know, that's why we threw the T in the water. We're fighting against that. We're fighting against government overreach. Do you think, does it make sense to anybody when reading the constitution that James Madison really meant when he wrote this initially? Do you think that he meant, oh yeah, yeah, yeah, you can sneak onto our properties and put up cameras and spy on us? Let's put up some flock cameras on people's properties next. Let's give the game wardens a contract with Flock and let them put cameras so they can evaluate all of us, right? Like, how far does this go? How far do you do you think they have the right to just check to see if on our own private property we do these things? Of course not. Nobody, nobody in their right minds thinks that that's real. It's only used to justify the prohibition. It's only used to justify taking away your freedom. And the Supreme Court is supposed to be the check, right? There's checks and balances in our government. They're supposed to check the the government. They, the, the, the law enforcement and the legislature and the executive branch, uh, they're supposed to check them based off of the constitution. They didn't do it. They just said, yeah, you know what, we hate weed and so, or we we hate alcohol. Alcohol's bad, weed's bad, so therefore we have to take away your freedom and we can step onto your property and put up cameras and watch you? Uh does does does any of that sound like what does anybody actually think that's what James Madison meant when he wrote the Fourth Amendment? Does do do they? No, nobody, nobody thinks that. Again, and if this isn't enough for you, if you're like, man, Steven, you know what? That wasn't a good case. You know, I think the Supreme Court should just take away your freedom. I think that the Supreme Court should just make up, just use whatever definition they want at whatever time period they want, and not look at the founding fathers. If that's your position, well, you're in luck because that's the weakest argument against open fields or for open fields. That's the or sorry, against open fields, yes. That's the weakest one. It gets even better. It really does. This is the the the the crux of the matter, is that they forgot half of the fourth amendment. You can't just read half of it, right? We've only gotten through the first line, and that's how they just like, yeah. If it's only these four things, the Supreme Court tried to say it's only these four things. It's only persons, houses, papers, and effects. That's it. That's the only things that are protected here. Well, if that was it, that'd still be a horrible argument. You're still wrong. You're still way, you're still embarrassingly wrong. You're still, you're still you embarrassed yourself with this decision. We we know that, but let's just go on to the more uh the even the even better argument that we have, because the rest of the Fourth Amendment says actually, no, let me let me let me just let me read it again. I just want to make sure that I'm reading the exact words, not just my notes. Um, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, which we love this amendment, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issued. Remember, no warrant shall be issued. You have to get a warrant, right? Well, what do you have to get a warrant for? Interesting. There's more, there's more lines to the Fourth Amendment than just the first one. But upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, okay, and particularly describing the place to be searched. It says it right there. The place to be searched. Did you did you did you not read the whole thing? You're the Supreme Court and you didn't read the whole Fourth Amendment? You just you just stopped when you got past the first line and went, yeah, let's change that word and we'll just go off of, yeah, we'll just go off of that part. Well, no, there's there's there's a whole thing there. And and you should have read it. Again, they embarrassed themselves with this situ with this with this decision. Places to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. It was very specific when it says places. That's the words of the Constitution you just heard with your own ears. Now, why is that even more important than you might think it is? We'll get into that too. Those four things uh let's see, I gotta move on to my next part of my notes. Um places at that time, so you so let's look at the definition of places. It is uh defined as a particular portion of space. A particular portion of space. What would be a particular portion of space? Well, I think that would be my land, my hunting property, my farm. It's a particular portion of space. The founding fathers were very clear. James Madison was very clear. Even though they took out the word properties, and even if you're like, well, they took out the word, we knew what they meant, but let's keep going, they still said that the warrant, you needed a warrant. And remember, the warrants were there to protect the officers, the game wardens, the police officers, that's that's what they're meant for. Like, because, you know, you can't just come on my property, you're gonna get yourself shot, you're gonna get yourself, you know, arrested. That's trespassing. You know, you don't get to just trespass on people's property. So the warrant is to protect them against the trespassing charge. It's to get, you know, to protect them against the theft charge. You can't just take people's stuff. You have to have a reason, and there has to be a check and balance there. The judicial branch, supposed to be the Supreme Court here, even though they dropped the ball in an epically horrible way. It is a particular portion of space. It was very clear when they wrote this. You can't, you can't get away from the actual words of the Constitution. Even, even, even if you go with, you know, even if you want to throw out the word effects, which I think is ridiculous. It is ridiculous. It's it's incredibly ridiculous, and you have to be incredibly stupid and dumb and and incoherent and playing the craziest game of mental gymnastics, by the way, to throw out the word effects and think that it doesn't mean your property, when he said property initially. How is it legal for a person to walk on your property but not law enforcement officers? Like why? Like like explain that to me. How is it illegal for other people to walk on my property but a law enforcement officer can't? They're not they're not given special, there's nowhere in the Constitution are they given special permission to come on your property, right? Like let's not forget the Tenth Amendment. You know, if it's not in here, the government doesn't get to do it, right? Like that's that's the whole the whole thing right there, right? Remember? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hey, if it's not in there, It's not the right of the government. It's that of the state and then of the person, right? Like we, I think a lot of the people listening to this have read the Constitution. Hopefully. If you haven't, read the whole thing. Um, it's a it's a very, it's a it's a very interesting document. Takes it takes a while to actually like really obviously people have been arguing about it for you know hundreds of years now, but it is a brilliant document. So, but if but if an individual doesn't have the right, nobody's given the right to the game wardens, no one's given the right to the police officers. It's nowhere in the Constitution. Nobody's given them that right. The Supreme Court just simply made something up out of thin air saying, well, you know, the word effects doesn't necessarily mean property. Well, it does, but we're gonna just pretend like it doesn't, and we're gonna forget to read the second half of the Fourth Amendment, which does say places that you need a warrant to go to places, portions of property, space, my land, you know, like like it's it's all right there. So let me kind of wrap this one up. It's gonna be a little short uh today because I got um I'm behind and my camera's not working. But it's really easy to read the Fourth Amendment and understand how horrible these decisions were. That's why state legislators have to come in and stop this stuff. I've been called by they're calling me. I'm getting messages online. There is a real push by hunters to want to shut down this open fields doctrine. And and it's not not just about hunters. Again, I said, you know, I made the I made the example um that, you know, I I care more about my freedom than my neighbor shooting a deer to feed his family, right? Like that's of course, that's easy. But but that's that's not even the dumbest argument. Like, like I want to talk about some of the dumb arguments I saw against it. There's very few. I mean, this is this is a this is a 95-5 issue at this point. And any any anybody on either side of the aisle, Republican or Democrat, this is a freedom issue. I mean, this is this would be a very popular thing in any state to shut down. So one one one little side uh rabbit trail I want to go on because I have some special insight on this stuff. Why? Right? Like why? Like why it this is an easy win. If you're a Republican in the state house or a state senator, this is an easy win for you. Especially if you're in a very Republican district or a rural district. Like you just like do you just want to win? Like non-stop. Do you want to win every election until you die? Just pass this, right? Like this is an easy one. So, so why isn't it being done? Why did I have three different well, I had four, but uh, state rep Heidi Workman, uh, she called me, but that was we talked about this a little bit, but I had three other state reps from other from other states uh call and ask about this. Why? Why like just pass it? Well, there's a really good reason that most people don't understand. It's politics. And now I've been to the the fancy the fancy dinner parties, right? Like I get to go, right? I help out in politics. I'm I'm really good on social media. People need my assistance. I get I have a foot in the door. This is how I gain access. I'm I'm literally getting ready to run another campaign. I don't have time for it, but I'm gonna do it anyway because I I know how important this stuff is. When you go to these fancy dinner parties, or especially, oh, the dinner parties are, yeah, they're they're disgusting, but the the real ones are the are the um the fundraisers, right? Like you're on the rooftop bars in downtown, they got drinks, they got all the state reps and senators and judges and oh, the people that represent the Department of Natural Resources are there too. Hobnobbing with all the politicians. So who are the politicians listening to? Are they listening to the average everyday hunter? No, they're not. They're not listening to you. Have they called you up and talked to you? No, but they're talking to the head of the ODNR. They're talking to the the head of the Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources. They're sitting in these, they're in, and it's not just the fundraisers. It's in their offices. In their who, where do you think these guys go? What do you think their job is? At the top of your game agencies. The people who are running those agencies, what do you think their job is? Their job isn't to go out into the into the field and improve habitat or work with their employees. It's to manage the politicians. They have a seat at the table and we do not. That's why this isn't getting passed. Because there's no push for it from the public. I intend to change that. With a bunch of social media pressure coupled with people getting into the state legislatures and working those politicians, which again, I do that. This is what this is what Hunter Nation is great about. Like, and I know Hunter Nation hasn't taken up open fields doctrine yet. You know, they're they're they're they're jumping on the CWD bandwagon with me right now, which is really cool. Keith Marks is doing some great things on that. Uh, can't say enough about them. You know, Hunter Nation is the only hunting uh actual organization that I'm a part of. You know, I I pay for it. You know, they they actually offered to have me come on board and they're like, hey, we can pay you to do social media. I'm like, no, no, no. I don't need anything from you guys. I'll help you out. I will. But, you know, they're they're they're doing great work on the political side over there. They were doing great work with wolves, they're doing great work with the CWD stuff. They're helping people get elected. That way they have a seat at the table. That way, hunters have a seat at the table. We're gonna keep getting steamrolled as hunters if we don't have a seat at the table. Obviously, the social media thing puts a lot of pressure on them and we get a little bit of a seat at the table, but we have to turn it into action, we have to turn it into action. And again, I'm not perfect at this, but you know, I'm I'm I'm there, at least in Ohio. I can't be there everywhere, but I'm in Ohio. I'm I'm putting pressure on them. I'm gonna make sure, I'm gonna try to make these things happen. You guys are gonna, if you're following this podcast, you're gonna see me succeed or fail. But I'm if if I fail, I'm gonna fail trying. I'm gonna, I'm gonna show up. What was it the Ovon said? He's like, I may not be good at a lot, but I sure do show up for it, right? Like I'm I don't know how good I am at politics, but I I've I've found my way in there because right now it's only the heads of the game agencies, which tend to be in general, more they're they're they're part of the bureaucracy, right? They're it's big government, government waste, that's what it all is. Now, moving off of that, that little uh rabbit trail, why else isn't this stuff getting passed? And I guess I guess I probably shouldn't even say why else isn't getting it passed, but what are the arguments from the DNRs why it can't get passed? They're gonna tell you things that are just absolute lies. They're gonna say, oh, well, if you get hurt on your property, we can't come on and look for you. Okay, well, how are they gonna know you're hurt on your property? Oh, because somebody called them. And when they call them, you know what they do? They give you permission. That's allowed. You can invite a police officer or a game warden into your house. You can invite them onto your property. You can say, hey, can you go check on this person? That's absolutely legal. The other thing they're gonna say is, well, this is gonna help people get away with poaching. How am I supposed to go and catch the poachers? Um, well, again, this is a really easy one. Get a warrant, okay? Like the Constitution intended. And then my favorite one, the favorite uh pushback I got, again, these pushbacks are incredibly weak. There's no real merit to them. They embarrassed the people that even commented saying this. But the one was again, I know you guys have heard somebody say this before, but if you're not breaking the law, why do you care? All right. How much time we got? Um, how about this? Go read a history book. There's this great book on on this that that I think everybody should read. It's just called uh any history book ever written. That's it. It's any, any, any history, just just start reading any. In fact, read the Bible. Read the Bible too. Read it anywhere. Go go anywhere in any history book, including the Bible, and read it. And just it won't take you long. And you're gonna see where government's just screwing people over, right? You're gonna see wars, you're gonna see theft, you're gonna see collapsing economies. All because, oh, well, you know, you don't have any, you're not breaking the law. Well, I'm not breaking the law now until you change the law. Look what they did with the Fourth Amendment, right? They they they completely just made things up. They get to change the law. It's you're not breaking the law until they decide that you're breaking, till they don't like what you're doing. This isn't about the law. They get to write the laws. It just, just what a what a what a dumb response. That just that that one just drives me crazy. I I can't even reply to it on social media because it's I just say, please, just please read any history book and then get back to me and we can have this discussion. That's normally how I reply. Because it's just I don't know. It it makes me question humanity. That argument's so dumb. So let me finish this up real quick. Just give a couple things. Uh, you know, you can call your state reps, uh, there's an election coming up. Um, oh, one more thing I did want to get into. I have a real question for people, and this is gonna be an open-edg question. I I hope people comment. I hope you I hope you guys do listen to this and ask me. Why has nobody written about this? Why is it that the outdoor writers that are out there now, and trust me, I've talked to some. There's some good, there's some good writers out there that have privately told me. People that people that like I don't know many of their their names. I I read them, you know, we we read the Field and Stream magazines back in the day, you know, and there's some writers there. Some of us that are more into it than others might recognize a few names, but I don't know that many names. One of the names I actually knew, he was one of the big time guys, called me up and was like, and there's been a couple of these people calling me, going, listen, man, there were certain things that they just didn't want you talking about. And now look at who the writers are now. Just just pay attention. That's all that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying anything yet. Okay. But this is the biggest thing I found, and that's as much as I can say about it. I'm looking into this. There's some very disturbing things here, and I will say that they had the outdoor writing community let us down, myself included, because I've been doing this for a long time and I just didn't take it seriously enough to realize that you know we we needed to attack some of these tougher issues. But there's there's giant newspaper organization uh hunting magazines and organizations with staffs, full-time salaried employees, many of them. There's a bunch of different ones. I mean, they they all lose money because they're printing in magazines, but you know, they're backed by these big companies, and you know, that's where they do their advertising at. And uh, you know, why have none of them pushed back on it? I think the the the easy answer, and this is this is one of the answers, I will say this. One of the answers, the least scary answer is well, look at the industry. The industry makes money, the industry doesn't want controversy. The same, the, the, when field and stream, when you're writing for field and stream, do you think that they want somebody to bring this stuff up? Do you think they want somebody talking about the corruption in CWD? Do you want think that they want somebody? If you guys have listened to this podcast or followed Rack Junkies on Facebook, do you think that they want somebody talking about this NGO scam they got going on? Or the DEI inside of the game agencies. Do you think they want people talking about that? No, they want the money to keep flowing. They love the argument of, hey, we all got to get along. We all got to get along because they're getting rich. That's why they don't, they don't want any controversy because they're getting rich and they're controlling the industry. This is this is very clear. I mean, and once you once you start looking, you'll see that. That that's the easy answer, right? But I think that it's much more sinister than that. And I will be getting into that. I'm writing an entire chapter in my book, which is still not titled. And if you got a good title for my book, uh, you know, I don't even know what I'm gonna title it. I know um obviously there's some, you know, CWD 19 is one of the chapters. There's a chapter about me, there's a chapter about uh, you know, narcissistic retards with a God complex. That's about the top level of the game agencies, you know, the people running the game agencies, not not the biologists. There's a whole chapter on them too, not the uh uh, you know, people on the ground or the game wardens, you know, there's might be a chapter on that. But I don't have a title for that book yet. But the the the outdoor industry and the writers and how we got to this point, and I'm just a redneck kid with an iPhone that reads a lot, and I'm the one breaking the stories. I'm the one, I mean me, like all these big names, and it's me? That doesn't make sense. That doesn't make sense to me. I mean, this this stuff is clear. I have the documents, the primary source materials that I post. I've been I've been doing better about posting the actual links to these crazy studies and all this corruption I've been finding uh in the comments. Um, just just to sort cite my sources, because I don't I don't some people they want to discredit you by being like, well, what's your source? Like, oh, here you go. Um, all of my things I have sources for. So I'm gonna end it on that. I just want everybody to remember that we can do something about open fields doctrine. Two states are down, 48 to go. Call your state legislators, actually, just message them on Facebook. Be like, hey man, uh, you're a Republican in a Republican district. Why are game wardens and police officers allowed to hide on my property and put up cameras? That's crazy. Do you support that? Do you support that or not? And if they say no, say, are you will you commit to voting to shut down this open fields doctrine and then message me and let me know what their response is? I'll write down names, and trust me, I've got a list of people who've told me that they're against it. Um, I haven't found anybody that said they're for it. Nobody, no, no state level politician is dumb enough to be like, nah, we we support, we support that. We we think people should be allowed to sneak around on your property and hide cameras and try and catch you doing something wrong. Uncle Sam is watching, and he should be. No, but nobody's saying that. Neither side of the aisle, by the way. So we got to pin them down, push them down on this. Open fields doctrine should be shut down. Yes, it's gonna make game wardens' jobs harder. Will it even result in potentially a few more poaching cases? It could. It could. It didn't have a disastrous effect in Tennessee. We've seen that already. We've very clearly seen that already. Uh, you know, they'll they'll tell you that that it's having a bad effect. I talked to the guy who's in charge of the DNR out there. It's a dude with one arm. I always forget his name. Real nice guy. But he was he was telling me, he's like, oh yeah, it's so super horrible. I'm like, well, give me some examples. He's like, man, there's one guy, they were shooting a bunch of ducks on his neighbor's property. There was even a guy that was accusing his neighbor of shooting deer and couldn't go on and do anything about it. I said, Well, if you couldn't do anything about it, did you did you just if if you had the evidence and didn't you try to get a a warrant? Because if you if you didn't, that's incompetence. And if you did and a judge said no, that means that there wasn't any evidence and you shouldn't go on his property anyway. And that was the extent that he could give me. I said, hey, have anybody call me. He I he had my phone number. I got his. He he never followed up. He said he was gonna have people talk to me. He's like, if you talk to these people, you'll you'll get behind this too. I said, Okay, I'm I'm all ears. I'm all ears. Never reach back out. But what do you expect? Open fields doctrine is incredibly stupid and needs to be shut down. Thank you. This is Rack Junkies Podcast. Uh, I hate saying this, but like and subscribe. Gotta be a millennial about it. Like and subscribe.