Journalist fired for writing about public access

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

If you click on DU's News & Media tab, then Magazine, the other authors pages are there, but there could be another reason for it.
 
I just got a what feels like a canned reply from a "senior communications specialist". For a nobody kind me to get a response that fast tells me this is a big fire they are trying to put out.
 
I suppose others are getting this response to their comments as well from DU:

E. Donnall Thomas was a freelance contributor to Ducks Unlimited magazine. He was not a DU employee. He wrote the “Closing Time” column, which appeared on the back page of every issue. Mr. Thomas had been writing this column for DU since 2001.



In the Fall 2015 issue of Outside Bozeman, Mr. Thomas wrote an article entitled: “A Rift Runs Through It; Fighting For Access to the Ruby River.” The article dealt with ongoing legal challenges related to public access on a portion of Montana’s Ruby River that runs through a longstanding DU volunteer leader’s property in Montana. DU recognizes there are many views on this issue, but our mission is waterfowl and wetlands conservation. As a result, DU has no position on the stream access issue in Montana.



In DU’s opinion, the article published by Mr. Thomas in Outside Bozeman publicly and very personally attacked a DU volunteer leader. We felt that the article demonstrated a lack of fairness in vilifying a member of the DU family without allowing that person the opportunity to provide his perspective.



As a result, DU decided to discontinue its relationship with Mr. Thomas. We would be similarly concerned if Mr. Thomas had written comparable statements about any DU volunteer leader. DU honors freedom of speech, but also honors our volunteers.



Mr. Thomas has the right to express his opinions in any way he sees fit. DU has the right to choose who contributes to its publications.



Attachment: Outside Bozeman article by E. Donnall Thomas
Click to expand...

So in a disagreement between two members of the DU family about something that doesn't have anything to do with DU, winner is determined by contributions?

It seems then I should think about exercising my right to cancel my membership?
 
"DU has no position on the stream access issue in Montana."

This should read- "no official position" Any idiot can see a position has been taken.
 
So, who is the editor that APPROVED the story to be printed in the first place? If there was an issue then that person should have said so and squashed the piece. Methinks it's STILL an "after the fact" case of "that guy did me wrong he should be fired" type of thing.
 
This goes way beyond Kennedy and his property and some little property dispute.

I was hired to do some research for a documentary film maker recently, who wanted access laws and the quotes from the MT Supreme Court hearing that took place here in Bozeman, at MSU, on April 29, 2013, which btw, ruled in favor of PLWA. It took awhile, but I found a video recording of the hearing and transcribed part of it. I will be getting this rendered and online soon for people to be able to see for themselves. Also, the case is not PLWA against Kennedy, it was against Madison County, Kennedy joined as an intervenor.

Besides Kennedy's attorney stating that Kennedy owns the air space above the river, that stream access was a taking, he also stated, "This court said that unconstitutional actions are void and the passage of time does not render them okay, does not render them constitutional." At which point Justice Patricia Cotter asked, "You're asking us to overturn Curran & Hildreth, aren't you, and also to declare the stream access bill unconstitutional?"

Kennedy's attorney stated, "That's correct."

Cotter then asked, "Counsel, aren't you also asking us to declare a portion of the Montana Constitution unconstitutional? (Kennedy's attorney interjected "Yes") Article Nine, Section 3 provides paragraph 3 that, 'All surface, underground, flood, and atmospheric waters within the boundaries of the state are the property of the state for the use of its people and are subject to appropriation for beneficial uses as provided by law.' If your position is, we were to accept it, would reject that provision of the constitution?"

Again, Kennedy's attorney replied "yes".

This is our Montana Constitution and our Stream Access we are talking about.

I just had a permission request by King of the Mountain, by way of Kimber USA, to run this article. Based on comments, they are not too happy about this either.
 
Last edited:
Maybe all these journalists who have been evicted from mainstream jobs for taking a stand should form their own media company to take on the anti-public, anti-NAMWC bullies. I'd subscribe to support their work.
 
katqanna said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's really low, and eerily reminiscent of an Orwellian memory hole. For now, some pages are still available in Google's cache, like this Q and A with Don Thomas.
 The entire article isn't easily accessible, but it's easy to use Google's cache to see what DU has deleted from their site.
 
Last edited:
noharleyyet said:
DU sure didn't mince words explaining how their big dogs get what they want.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking.

I read the Outside Bozeman article in question and I did not see any reference to DU in that article. Maybe I missed it.
 
Hello all. I'm new to this site so please forgive any clumsiness. First, thanks to all who have expressed support. And a few points to emphasize. This is NOT about me or a job. (I have lots of writing to do.) I derive no pleasure from the beating DU has taken over the last two days. I have great respect for what DU has done for waterfowl, and for its staff in the field. This issue is about transparency in the boardrooms of the organizations we give our wildlife dollars to, the need to recognize the values of rank and file members (like the people here) as opposed to monied interests, and freedom of the press. The notion that any one wealthy individual can dictate policy to hundreds of thousands of grass roots members of an organization (especially when those policies are at odds) or stifle a journalist just because their feelings got hurt should scare us all. I am reluctant to respond to earlier posts critical of writers for not being "impartial" (I'm here to make friends, not enemies), but it is hard to be impartial when you're covering an individual who has illegally blocked access to public land or water, called for the overturning of Montana's stream access law, and had his lawyer ask the Montana Supreme court to rule the state's constitution unconstitutional. Sorry, but you''ll have to find another writer to do that job. I'll stay in touch. Thanks again. Don
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nameless Range
UPOM as an Anti-Hunting, Anti-Fishing Organization
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
11K
BuzzH
B
Brad
It's Public Land. But The Public Can't Reach It.
Replies
16
Views
4K
Mussgrass
M
M
Recovering America's Wildlife Act passes House
Replies
6
Views
2K
Joseph Peterson
Joseph Peterson
Hydrophilic
Missed Opportunities: Hunters and Environmentalists
3 4 5
Replies
96
Views
10K
hossblur
H
M
Questions about DU
Replies
0
Views
568
MNH20FowlHunter
M
Advertisement

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,567
Messages
2,025,350
Members
36,234
Latest member
catballou

Share this page

Back
Top