Journalist fired for writing about public access

[Oak]

Are you saying that conservation orgs don't represent the average hunter? Who would have thought such things... the Wealthy Sheephunter Foundation is near the top of the hypocrite list... sell them animals to the highest bidder because that's the only way to save them sheep. By killing them one at a time.

Isn't that how we "save" all species? By selling the opportunity to kill them?

 

[noharleyyet]

Isn't that how we "save" all species? By selling the opportunity to kill them?

...or entrap offenders by killing one of the best of species?

 

[Oak]

...or entrap offenders by killing one of the best of species?

Really?

 

[katqanna]

Thank you, those of you who have reached out to DU about this issue. Don did not deserve this. I just got off the phone with Don and he expressed a thought last night, as well as today that is important - we are losing journalists to money and politics.

I dont know if some of you remember, but Laura Lundquist, who used to write for the Bozeman Chronicle, was forced out because she wrote about Steve Daines and his initial position on the LWCF. Mounting pressure from groups/individuals forced him to correct that position for the public.

I cannot but help remember that old movie, Mr. Smith goes to Washington, where the protagonist gets elected and is trying to stand up for the people. A corruption is found and the papers wont even write about it, just the opposite, because they were controlled by politics and big money. So the Boy Scouts print out their own paper, only to have it stolen. Though we are no longer dealing with just printed material, the silencing of those reporting for the Public Trust, the democracy of the wild, scientific wildlife management, etc., is getting more difficult. I have heard this for a couple years now, from other writers that are no longer writings for organizations and journals as they once did - because of the politics and money.

 

[ewludwig]

MSG just sent. I joined DU this last year. Conservation of land is critical (hello Captain Obvious), especially in MN where modern farming has really impacted key habitat. This thread has me seriously reconsidering my future support. Too bad. Tomorrow is Veterans Day. Maybe DU can reflect on what the day means. Vets swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and subsequently the Bill of Rights. Assaults on free speech cannot be tolerated.

 

[Oak]

Thank you, those of you who have reached out to DU about this issue. Don did not deserve this. I just got off the phone with Don and he expressed a thought last night, as well as today that is important - we are losing journalists to money and politics.

I dont know if some of you remember, but Laura Lundquist, who used to write for the Bozeman Chronicle, was forced out because she wrote about Steve Daines and his initial position on the LWCF. Mounting pressure from groups/individuals forced him to correct that position for the public.

I cannot but help remember that old movie, Mr. Smith goes to Washington, where the protagonist gets elected and is trying to stand up for the people. A corruption is found and the papers wont even write about it, just the opposite, because they were controlled by politics and big money. So the Boy Scouts print out their own paper, only to have it stolen. Though we are no longer dealing with just printed material, the silencing of those reporting for the Public Trust, the democracy of the wild, scientific wildlife management, etc., is getting more difficult. I have heard this for a couple years now, from other writers that are no longer writings for organizations and journals as they once did - because of the politics and money.

The Denver Post Outdoors Columnist, Scott Willoughby, was let go in August this year, shortly after writing this controversial column which cast a very wealthy landowner and CPW in a bad light. I have heard comments privately from some CPW staff and a lobbyist for the landowner that the second action was not coincidental to the first. This is Scott's last "column," distributed by email.

The outdoors column you won't be reading in The Denver Post

As some of you already know, today was my last day at The Denver Post. I've been fortunate to have the opportunity to contribute to "The Voice of the Rocky Mountain West" as an Outdoors writer, photographer and columnist for the past 20 years, joining the full-time staff to launch the Outdoor Extremes section before graduating to Outdoors Editor for the last 11 of those.

There's not much left to say that isn't included in the farewell column (below) that my editor opted not to print, except to reiterate my heartfelt thanks for the opportunity and your enthusiastic support.

It's been a good run, although the work is never done. Here's to the next chapter.



By Scott Willoughby

The best stories have always originated in the outdoors.

Be it the fireside tale that never grows old no matter how many times it’s told, or a modern classic born of the latest adventure, the wild outside has always offered the ideal backdrop for compelling drama.

Like the rest of the world, the genre has evolved over time, taking us beyond the campfire to the Ted Trueblood era of Field & Stream, establishing local newspaper legends like Charlie Meyers, Bob Saile and Ed Dentry before making its way to the cutting edge of social media and contemporary brands like Yeti Coolers that urge through advertising: Be the guy with the story about the bear.

Along the way, it found folks like you and me: Drawn in by nature’s allure, hooked by the sensations of adventure, dedicated to enriching and sharing the experience so that others might come to understand our collective passion for the outdoors and embrace it as their own. The stories are the things that connect us best to the land, the water, the wildlife and one another.

There will always be a place for compelling outdoor stories and storytelling in Colorado, just no longer here on these pages. Or perhaps just no longer here by me.

As of this week, The Denver Post has decided to do away with its traditional Outdoors pages, and by extension, my position as Outdoors writer, photographer and columnist. I’ve been invited to continue writing stories about Rams, Buffaloes and Falcons, but like those college sports mascots, the gesture feels symbolic at best. In all likelihood, this is the final column, outdoors or otherwise, I’ll be asked to write for The Denver Post.

Among those outside the paper already aware of this decision, the disappointment has been universal. The pervading sense of loss has less to do with me personally than to Colorado’s collective outdoors community as an entity. In the absence of an uprising — and likely even in its presence — the voice of that community expressed for so long on these pages will soon fade to black. So many stories are left untold.

It can be easily argued that these stories of wild places and the people drawn to them are more important now than ever. As our sprawling world grows ever more crowded, battle lines drawn over resources in greater demand, such places offer respite and reward that can’t be found or recreated anywhere else. And they require the voices of those who know and love them best to keep the fire lit.

My ambition is to continue down this path, although where it leads is anyone’s guess right now. After two decades dedicated to the cause of Colorado outdoors, the mission and message remain as compelling as ever. It’s the job I was born to do (and yes, I am open to offers).

First though, my heartfelt thanks are due for the opportunity I’ve had to do the job I’ve most aspired toward. While there is much more to achieve, for a time, at least, I could lay claim to the best job in Colorado.

But like the campfire that gave birth to so many stories and outdoor traditions, this chapter is about to go up in smoke. I have no doubt the fire has not gone out, however. The flame will reignite and grow. The stories — maybe even some told by me — will linger. And new ones will emerge.

The void is great. But the tale is never-ending.

-30-

 

[The Hedgehog]

If it gives anybody a warm fuzzy - about 15 years ago a friend of mine was harassed by a rancher just below the Ruby reservoir. Rancher was hot and mouthy and quickly unconscious after a sharp right hook to the face. DU - FU.

 

[huntin24/7]

Greenhorn, That makes me smile inside about as much as the sound my new rifle made yesterday when that loud wap echoed through the canyon after smacking a fat muley.

 

[Elkmagnet]

This needs distributed to a much broader audience.

 

[katqanna]

I put it out on the newsletter, which has about 925 subscribers, some from the other western states, some of which I know are DU members, then the blog, also up on MT reddit this morning. I saw that this morning on my news feed that Fly Rod & Reel online, Ted Williams, had run Don's letter as well - DU: This Looks Very Bad. Please Respond. I have seen it show up on some other forums this afternoon.

And a number of people from a variety of states asked me in reply emails this morning for the online link to the article, to put up on their facebook pages and spread it around.

I also spoke with a couple reporters today about this (and over a dozen, including 2 from NY, are on my newsletter list and the Constant Contact analytics shows they opened the newsletter), Don also has a great network of people he reached out to, so I think it is gaining some awareness.

 

[Pinecricker]

Interesting situation that highlights a major weakness / risk in the business model these types of organizations are based on. A few large donors mean a lot more to the organization than small individuals donors or membership fees do.

In one conservation organization I was involved with, the membership dues and donations of 95% of the donors, didn't even make a material impact on the budget. It was all big money from 5% that paid the bills. This was despite having a very solid membership base, and having some relatively large individual donations.

Not only do large donations pay the bills, and pay for conservation work, the folks with big check books also tend to wield a lot more political influence than us plain old voters. They have a voice that gets listened to, that they can use to advocate with. So much so they are almost a prerequisite for effectiveness in many cases.

With this is the risk that one individual or interest group may distract these organizations from their missions. I can guarantee that with a large enough donation, you could fairly easily "buy" a board seat on any of the major groups like DU, TU, RMEF, WSF, etc. I don't think they even pretend to have independent boards. Some even require you to be a donor to be eligible to run for the board. Check the bylaws.

By the same token, if you do make a huge donation, you'd want to have some say in how it gets spent? Though, this makes for a tough situation in terms of governance, and defining who the organization really represents. Just as shareholders in a corporation get votes per share, there is a similar effect in non-profits with donations. Both can work, or both can backfire. ( but show me a billionaire with altruistic, non-self interested tendencies).

I am not familiar with the work of this particular writer, but as for outdoor journalists in general, I am sick of them. Most of them make no pretense of trying to be impartial. They have a platform, which most of them use to pimp their own personal views and agenda. Its opinion not news.

The way I see it, if you're in the business of selling your opinion, then you alone bear the risk that it cuts both ways. You don't get immunity from the actions of those who might disagree with you. On the positive side, this situation at least casts a little transparency on where the true motivation of DU comes from. Better the devil you know...

 

[Mudranger1]

Interesting situation that highlights a major the weakness / risk in the business model these types of organizations are based on. A few large donors mean a lot more to the organization than small individuals donors or membership fees do.

In one conservation organization I was involved with, the membership dues and donations of 95% of the donors, didn't even make a material impact on the budget. It was all big money from 5% that paid the bills. This was despite having a very solid membership base, and having some relatively large individual donations.

Not only do large donations pay the bills, and pay for conservation work, the folks with big check books also tend to wield a lot more political influence than us plain old voters. They have a voice that gets listened to, that they can use to advocate with. So much so they are almost a prerequisite for effectiveness in many cases.

With this is the risk that one individual or interest group may distract these organizations from their missions. I can guarantee that with a large enough donation, you could fairly easily "buy" a board seat on any of the major groups like DU, TU, RMEF, WFS, etc. I don't think they even pretend to have independent boards. Some even require you to be a donor to be eligible to run for the board. Check the bylaws.

By the same token, if you do make a huge donation, you'd want to have some say in how it gets spent? Though, this makes for a tough situation in terms of governance, and defining who the organization really represents. Just as shareholders in a corporation get votes per share, there is a similar effect in non-profits with donations. Both can work, or both can backfire. ( but show me a billionaire with altruistic, non-self interested tendencies).

I am not familiar with the work of this particular writer, but as for outdoor journalists in general, I am sick of them. Most of them make no pretense of trying to be impartial. They have a platform, which most of them use to pimp their own personal views and agenda. Its opinion not news.

The way I see it, if you're in the business of selling your opinion, then you alone bear the risk that it cuts both ways. You don't get immunity from the actions of those who might disagree with you. On the positive side, this situation at least casts a little transparency on where the true motivation of DU comes from. Better the devil you know...

Very intriguing response. Are you trying to pick a fight?!
:W:

 

[RobG]

Pinecricker - these things can be overcome if the membership speaks out - just ask TU. Regarding you comments about outdoor journalists, they aren't supposed to be impartial; they are supposed to be advocates for the outdoors and not influenced by outside money.

 

[BigBull301]

Comments sent.

 

[Pinecricker]

I think its a dick move by DU, but at the same time, it should come as no surprise. Donors wield influence.

Very intriguing response. Are you trying to pick a fight?!
:W:

 

[Pinecricker]

Agreed Rob, members can make a difference. They vote for board members, etc. Though, it can be very hard to get people fired up enough to take action.

As far as outdoor journalists, I'll stand by my comments. They can pimp their own opinions all they want, but they are not immune from the consequences.

Its sucks that DU would do this (align themselves with some one that sounds like a complete jerk), but I'll bet they need large donors more than they need newsletter writers. As I said, its one of the risks / weaknesses of that type of business model. Big money can hijack the agenda very easily.

Pinecricker - these things can be overcome if the membership speaks out - just ask TU. Regarding you comments about outdoor journalists, they aren't supposed to be impartial; they are supposed to be advocates for the outdoors and not influenced by outside money.

 

[Big Fin]

I think its a dick move by DU, but at the same time, it should come as no surprise. Donors wield influence.

I agree that DU has some major problems if this shakes out as it appears. As I stated, I have nothing but respect for Don and all he does. I spent six years of volunteerism for DU, helping run three large fund raisers each year.

Yet, here is the one thing that I struggle with. Any organization, whether for-profit or non-profit, once it reaches a mid-tier level, will implement strong governance policies. In the non-profit world governance policies are adopted by the Board and the Governance Committee is charged with oversight and adherence to such policies.

I have no doubt an organization the size of DU has a Governance Committee. I have no doubt they have legal staff internally and the Board has its own outside legal counsel to advise them on such issues. All of these Governance issues are designed to prevent a donor, board member, or person of influence exercising personal sway over the actions of the organization. Any circumvention of those governance protocols runs a huge credibility risk to the organization.

It is my familiarity with those basic business protocols in both the profit and non-profit world that have me struggling to understand how a donor, former board member, and former Chairman of a sister organization (Wetlands America Trust) would be allowed to exercise this level of influence on the organization. Regardless of the size of any single donor, proper governance protocols are instituted to prevent this outcome.

I'm still scratching my head on this one. One very credible guy, Don Thomas, and one very large credible conservation group, DU, and an outcome such as this.

 

[Hatchie Dawg]

CRAP!!!

I didn't realize this was E. Donnal Thomas, Jr. He is one of my favorite writers of all time, one of the few I look for now.

I am at a loss for words really. If this is as it appears, I can come up with little more than DU sux.

HD

 

[katqanna]

It is interesting that if you do a Google search on Ducks Unlimited and Don Thomas, any of the articles in the queue are no longer there - you get a 404 Not Found message. So I went to DU directly and in their search bar typed in Don Thomas, again, 404 messages on the pages the search pulled up.

They appear to be removing Don Thomas from their site.

 

[mtmiller]

It is interesting that if you do a Google search on Ducks Unlimited and Don Thomas, any of the articles in the queue are no longer there - you get a 404 Not Found message. So I went to DU directly and in their search bar typed in Don Thomas, again, 404 messages on the pages the search pulled up.

They appear to be removing Don Thomas from their site.

Noticed the same thing. I did not search any other names to verify that it was only a 404 for his articles.