Journalist Fired for fighting for public access

[DWarcher]

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 How does the donor know about an unpublished article?

It was published in Outside Bozeman Magazine.

 

[tipsntails7]

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.



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 How does the donor know about an unpublished article?

The writer is a free lance writer, despite what DU says. It was published, but not in a DU publication.

 

[GFY]

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.

I have to disagree, if we simply say ah-well-shucks..... to things like this then whats next?

DU's mission statement is "Ducks Unlimited conserves, restores, and manages wetlands and associated habitats for North America's waterfowl. These habitats also benefit other wildlife and people."

What people are they talking about? Apparently not you or I who might get pleasure out of the chance to hunt ducks or go fishing on the Ruby river in MT where state law says its legal to do so and a rich ass land owner throws his middle finger at the people and the state. Along comes a guy who embraces the values that are being lost in this country and publishes an article shedding light on what is happening in a very specific instance so maybe we can open our eyes and see what is happening. Maybe we can band together as sportsmen/women/conversationalists and maybe some good can come out of it? OR maybe we can just say "i'll accept the game that has to be played".............. not me

 

[Where's Bruce?]

How exactly do you "fire" a freelancer? Politics and money and litigation...in the end we sportsmen and women often lose.

 

[GFY]

I suppose you can call it what you want but after writing for DU for almost 20 years, being their "Field Editor" for the last several and writing the back page column in every issue I would say fired was a fair word. But we can just say terminated or dismissed instead if that makes you happy?

IN the end we often do lose. But maybe this time we could say that we have just been lost and are going to get together and make our voices heard?

 

[larryschwartz]

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.

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?

The article was published by the magazine Outside Bozeman, not by Ducks Unlimited. DU dropped him as a contributing editor because of the Outside Bozeman article, not anything he wrote in DU's publications.

 

[larryschwartz]

On the brighter side, Mr. Kennedy (the rich landowner) is probably pretty pissed off seeing as his actions have pushed this issue into the national headlines. The story was even on NBCs website earlier this week. Karma is a female dog, ain't she!

 

[5MilesBack]

But we can just say terminated or dismissed instead if that makes you happy?

I wouldn't use any of those terms. I'd just say that DU chose to not use him as a writer anymore, which is their prerogative.

Now.....had he been an actual employee of DU's and then he had an article published in another publication, I would say that is grounds for being "fired" as well.

 

[dotman]

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.

Not to be rude but sad you feel this way or that you'll bend over and take it because you have a smaller voice. If we all took this stance the middle class Hunter/Angler will be in the history books.

I emailed DU, guess more money is headed to RMEF next year.

 

[GFY]

I wouldn't use any of those terms. I'd just say that DU chose to not use him as a writer anymore, which is their prerogative.

No matter what you call it, the fact that it happened is wrong. If you have not taken the time to read the article in Outside Bozeman magazine I suggest you do so.

If DU believes as they state on their website:

Hunting, fishing and trapping shall be democratic. This gives all persons – wealthy and poor, landowner and non-landowner alike – the opportunity to participate.

then why would they "fire, terminate, cut ties with, dismiss..." (whatever word you choose) their field editor for pointing out that a wealthy land owner in MT does not want to play by the rules and would like to change the states own constitution?

 

[2ski]

My email to DU:



Mr. Coffey,

Let me say I am deeply disappointed in the decision of Ducks Unlimited to cut ties with Mr. Thomas. As a Montana resident and an outdoorsman, I hold our stream access law very important to myself and to my state. Your decision is clearly taking the side of an out-of-state wealthy landowner versus residents of this state and their right to access waterways.*


DU should also realize we can hunt waterfowl from that waterway, so you have in fact taken a stance against your own membership.*


You can state the reason for the decision is that DU felt that Mr. Thomas attacked Mr. Kennedy without getting Mr. Kennedy's position, however I read the article from Outside Bozeman and I found Mr. Kennedy's position to be quite clear from the court records. I also realize that Mr. Kennedy most likely gives quite generously to DU. However, through your decision you have made the statement that the position of DU is that money trumps the Montana state constitution. You can try to spin it any other way but that is what it comes down to. If it walks and talks like a duck.......


As a member of several hunting and outdoor forums along with social media posts I've noticed on Twitter and Facebook, I can tell you the reputation of DU among members of the Sporting community has suffered quite drastically. I have recently made the decision to join a conservation organization and had narrowed my choice down to DU, Pheasants Forever, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Through its recent actions DU is no longer on that list.*

 

[Where's Bruce?]

I wouldn't use any of those terms. I'd just say that DU chose to not use him as a writer anymore, which is their prerogative.

Now.....had he been an actual employee of DU's and then he had an article published in another publication, I would say that is grounds for being "fired" as well.

Exactly my take as well. I just saw a news article stating DU has launched a Nov 4th fundraiser and posted a comment:

They NEED to fundraise since terminating Thomas and upsetting tens of thousands of supporters by siding with a contributor who is definitely acting against the interests of DU. I hope Kennedy is willing to pay the difference DU is losing in financial support from the rank and file. Stupid move. Thomas is loved! DU...not so much anymore. And Kennedy can go jump in the river!

 

[dieNqvrs]

My email to DU:



Mr. Coffey,

Let me say I am deeply disappointed in the decision of Ducks Unlimited to cut ties with Mr. Thomas. As a Montana resident and an outdoorsman, I hold our stream access law very important to myself and to my state. Your decision is clearly taking the side of an out-of-state wealthy landowner versus residents of this state and their right to access waterways.*


DU should also realize we can hunt waterfowl from that waterway, so you have in fact taken a stance against your own membership.*


You can state the reason for the decision is that DU felt that Mr. Thomas attacked Mr. Kennedy without getting Mr. Kennedy's position, however I read the article from Outside Bozeman and I found Mr. Kennedy's position to be quite clear from the court records. I also realize that Mr. Kennedy most likely gives quite generously to DU. However, through your decision you have made the statement that the position of DU is that money trumps the Montana state constitution. You can try to spin it any other way but that is what it comes down to. If it walks and talks like a duck.......


As a member of several hunting and outdoor forums along with social media posts I've noticed on Twitter and Facebook, I can tell you the reputation of DU among members of the Sporting community has suffered quite drastically. I have recently made the decision to join a conservation organization and had narrowed my choice down to DU, Pheasants Forever, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Through its recent actions DU is no longer on that list.*

I sent a very similar letter to DU.

I personally have been a member for 25 years, but not anymore!

 

[Jason Snyder]

Just because someone is "family" doesn't mean they can't be called out when they're being an asshole. Kennedy's record speaks for itself.

Kudos to Don Thomas for calling it like it is, and shame on DU for being a puppet.

 

[5MilesBack]

If Mr. Thomas really wants to fight for public access, he ought to come to Colorado and fight. In CO, landowners own the stream bottom as well as the land around the streams. I'd say that MT already has great access, time to move the fight elsewhere.

 

[GFY]

Without people like Mr. Thomas and the PLWA, Montana might get turned into Colorado thanks to a-holes like Kennedy.

I am sure that if you contact the PLWA they can give you some ideas on how to start trying to get things changed in CO. I'm all for moving the fight elsewhere but not at the expense of loosing what we have fought hard to gain here in MT. A quick read of the article Mr. Thomas wrote in Outside Bozeman magazine will give you a very brief background in where our stream access laws came from and how the fight continues to keep them.

 

[2ski]

I used to like the music Huey Lewis and the News put out. I wouldn't mind having a few of his songs on my ipod. But I'm not giving that dude any money after his fight in MT over stream access.
http://m.mtstandard.com/lifestyles/...5f5f-b7ee-9699511eb2b1.html?mobile_touch=true

Mr. Kennedy is not the first to challenge our stream access. Nor will he be the last. There was actually a major donor to the University of Montana journalism department a few years ago that threatened to no longer donate until Montana changed its stream access laws to his liking. Oh wait. It was Mr. Kennedy.
http://newwest.net/main/article/u_of_montana_to_rich_donors_well_bend_over/

 

[2ski]

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/15/news/adna-montana15

Interesting article that seems to blame the situation on a feeling of dislike for rich out of staters. There's along of native ranchers who don't like our stream access law.

 

[5MilesBack]

There's along of native ranchers who don't like our stream access law.

I don't know a single landowner that likes having people essentially on their property. And yet all the non-landowners want to have access to or through everyone else's property.

 

[tipsntails7]

I don't know a single landowner that likes having people essentially on their property. And yet all the non-landowners want to have access to or through everyone else's property.

Well it's actually not their property.... By law.. So not much they can do about it