Journalist Fired for fighting for public access

[GFY]

I would suppose most of you by now know about Ducks Unlimited firing their Field Editor, Don Thomas, for an article he wrote regarding stream access laws in MT. In the article he sheds light on the 15+ year fight over access to the Ruby River and a wealthy land owner James Cox Kennedy. Apparently James is a big DU supporter and DU fired Don after the article was published.

Not sure if this is the place for this or not, just thought that people should be aware of what in my mind is simply wrong. I have been a DU member for several years and let them know that I would no longer be able to support their organization.

I am not sure how to post links to articles in newspapers but a simple search will provide you with plenty of reading.

stay safe shoot straight

 

[Ray]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3281751685b24b7a912e9e8ae2982bde/columnist-fired-after-writing-article-critical-donor

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2015/11/11/columnist-fired-writing-article-critical-donor/75623698/

The article
http://www.outsidebozeman.com/magazine/archives/fall-2015/rift-runs-through-it

Most know the author as E Donnall Thomas, MD who has written about AK for decades as well as his home state of MT.

 

[5MilesBack]

Montana has about the most liberal river access laws in the country. What was he fighting for??

 

[go4thegusto]

Time to turn the tide on "going viral" in our favor. Enough Cecil the lion. Once the ultra-rich start to influence hunting, fishing, and public access like they do in our broken political process we are all screwed. Welcome to England where the aristocracy are the only sportsmen.

Get out there and tell DU you won't support an organization who caves into a rich donor in an ironic front against everything they supposedly stand for.

 

[Matt W.]

Montana has about the most liberal river access laws in the country. What was he fighting for??

I had the same question:


Kennedy is a former board member and a contributor to Ducks Unlimited. He owns a Montana ranch and is involved in a lawsuit over public access to the Ruby River where it crosses his property, and Thomas' article accused Kennedy of believing that Montana laws do not apply to rich people.

From this link:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3281...st-fired-after-writing-article-critical-donor

Ducks Unlimited editorial director Matt Young sent Thomas a follow-up letter on Tuesday that said the decision was made because the article made personal attacks against "a member of the DU family."

"We simply cannot condone this type of vitriol directed by one of our contributing editors toward a dedicated DU volunteer, who is among the nation's most ardent and active waterfowl conservationists," Young's letter said.

Thomas said he believes Kennedy ordered Ducks Unlimited to fire him.

The other link is the actual story he wrote:
http://www.outsidebozeman.com/magazine/archives/fall-2015/rift-runs-through-it
You could tell the author is pretty ticked off...

 

[5MilesBack]

Interesting. It says that Thomas was a "contributing editor". The "Editor" should have approved the article for submission if it was published. This should fall to the Editor, not a contributing editor.

But yet again, someone buys property and moves to MT already knowing the laws..........and THEN attempts to challenge and change them. Pretty much what is going on now country-wide. Everybody knows the principles and ideologies that this country was founded on, yet they come here anyway and then try to change all that. All the while telling real Americans that they can leave if they don't like the new changes.

 

[The John]

That is sad... i hadn't heard, but as of lately I am not surprised. DU leadership has been lacking and I have not supported them for many years. I DO support other national groups, especially those that encourage others to state their own beliefs (good or bad) to better their organization.

 

[ozyclint]

without knowing the whole story, it sounds like 'ducks limited'

 

[Ray]

http://www.outdoornews.com/Matt%20Young%20letter.pdf

The letter from DU and the scanned article.

Below is the Outdoor News piece on the event.
http://www.outdoornews.com/November-2015/DU-parts-ways-with-Closing-Time-columnist/

 

[tipsntails7]

Montana has about the most liberal river access laws in the country. What was he fighting for??

Seems that the wealthy land owner was building fences to block access to the public.

 

[tipsntails7]

Interesting. It says that Thomas was a "contributing editor". The "Editor" should have approved the article for submission if it was published. This should fall to the Editor, not a contributing editor.

But yet again, someone buys property and moves to MT already knowing the laws..........and THEN attempts to challenge and change them. Pretty much what is going on now country-wide. Everybody knows the principles and ideologies that this country was founded on, yet they come here anyway and then try to change all that. All the while telling real Americans that they can leave if they don't like the new changes.

It's says field editor, but it also states he was actually a free lance contributor and never actually worked for DU. Either way the article was not published by DU.

 

[beachbunny]

interesting read,in my state the public has access only to "navigable" waterways

 

[PNWGATOR]

Unreal!

Don Thomas is an incredible author, outdoorsman and conservationist. Pathetic stand by Ducks Unlimited.

This is the contact information for DU:

Matt Coffey
Senior Communications Specialist
Ducks Unlimited
Office: (901) 758-3764
Cell: (843) 263-7445
[email protected]

I sent him an e mail and will contact their sponsors beginning tomorrow.

Beyond disgusted.

 

[MTarrowflinger]

I'm going to make a few phone calls tomorrow.

Not tooting a horn, or anything, but I'm a major donor, a member of the feather society, I've been a district chairman for several years, and I was actually Alaska's top volunteer in 2012. To be clear, I have given plenty of time and money to this organization and have spent the majority of my adult life believing in their cause and supporting it at every turn of the road. Hell, I'm still involved in Alaska Board of Directors operations. I would have never seen something like this happening. I would have thought they would have taken no stance on the matter, given its lack of relevance to their cause.

This is very upsetting on a few levels. I know I won't make any changes, I know better. But, I have a few friends in the organization and I feel like I might be able to at least rattle a few chains on my way out. Outrageous.

 

[Brandon Pattison]

Don is a hell of a guy. This will backfire, sadly. But only sadly because it is a black eye.

 

[MTarrowflinger]

I just sent him a text message.

 

[mattm94]

interesting read,in my state the public has access only to "navigable" waterways

"Navigable Waterway" is a legal term, you'd be surprised how many there are in the west, and where the Jurisdictional Delineation actually lies. "Navigable" has nothing to do with ever actually being able to float a vessel of any size, nor perennial water, in a drainage when you really get down to it. I don't know what state you're in, but having legal public access to any Navigable Waterway opens up a TON of country. Might take someone pushing the issue, and standing their ground about their legal access under the law, but it would be nice if there was a law on the books in your state to require the property owner to have the Jurisdictional Delineation surveyed and marked if there is a navigable waterway crossing the property and they wish to fence, limit, or otherwise restrict access adjacent to that area. If I was a property owner in that situation, I'd do exactly that, just to avoid any confusion. Here's where you can be, past this sign, is where you can't. Please respect my property.

 

[elkyinzer]

Not sure why anyone is too surprised over this, the writer should have known what was going to happen. For better or worse, the large conservation nonprofits all have to get on their knees for the mega donors because the overwhelming majority of their support comes from the rich good old boy network and their bequests and foundations. The small loss in membership they will experience is a drop in the bucket compared to losing a major donor. I guess overall I support the advancement of their mission so I'll accept the game that has to be played.

 

[2ski]

Mr. Young says they are not taking a position on MT's stream access, but they should. It's not just a fishing thing. MT's stream access laws allow you to WATERFOWL hunt from the water as well. It's sketchy on a small stream because you likely will end up with birds falling on private land, but you can do it.

On either a comment on Outside Bozeman's facebook post where they posted a map on how to get to the bridge the lawsuit is over, someone says something about going and putting a bunch of lead in the air down on the river, you know at all the ducks flying.

I do understand that these big money donors are what runs these big conservation groups. People see DU, PF and TU as rich people groups. How many PF photos do you see where they are wearing Filson. Stuff's not cheap. Walleyes Unlimited seems to be more the little guy of the groups. So I can see where pissing off a major donor is a bad idea, but it's going to be a public relations nightmare for DU I think.

 

[5MilesBack]

Seems that the wealthy land owner was building fences to block access to the public.

I've had to climb over or under a few fences across rivers in my days fishing in MT. As long as you stay inside the high water marks, it's all legal fishing access.

Either way the article was not published by DU.

If the article was never published, then what's the big deal. That also means that no one other than DU ever read it. How does the donor know about an unpublished article?