Journalist fired for writing about public access

Flatland Crusoe said:
I contacted DU yesterday as I have been a member since I was a Greenwing and they fed me the standard responses. I would rather see some reform within the organization than jump ship entirely, but I certainly may not return the renewal notice sitting on my kitchen table right now.

I have to imagine enough grass roots campaigning in an era of social media could reverse course on something like this.

Its clear that Kennedy doesn't value money and will give it away because he has too much to use in many lifetimes, but when it comes to something impacting his vacation property he can't make the smallest sacrifice for outdoor recreation of the greater good.

I fear the real problem is the bulk of Eastern DU members don't value public access the way that western guys do.
Click to expand...

I am an Eastern DU member and if it was not for public land I would not hunt ducks. I have also recently thought about selling my bass boat and buying a smaller boat that would allow me access to my local river to hunt ducks on it so this issue caught my attention due to the precedence it could set. It sounds like our laws are close to Montana's concerning the high water mark and public land. I have thought about volunteering with DU but not giving them money as a way to protest. It may not be as big of a deal to us "Eastern" members because most people do not use the rivers for as many activities as Western outdoorsmen. Quite honestly most people associate the rivers with less than desirable people around where I live.
 
JDH said:
I am an Eastern DU member and if it was not for public land I would not hunt ducks. I have also recently thought about selling my bass boat and buying a smaller boat that would allow me access to my local river to hunt ducks on it so this issue caught my attention due to the precedence it could set. It sounds like our laws are close to Montana's concerning the high water mark and public land. I have thought about volunteering with DU but not giving them money as a way to protest. It may not be as big of a deal to us "Eastern" members because most people do not use the rivers for as many activities as Western outdoorsmen. Quite honestly most people associate the rivers with less than desirable people around where I live.
Click to expand...

To me there is very much a solid divide having hunted western states and grown up and lived in multiple Midwestern states with regard to how public land is viewed. In the East public land is what you hunt on until you are old enough to make the connections or have enough money to lease or buy property. To me there is generally much less public land advocacy partially in part because the majority of people still hunt private land and even more so with the people that have the money, time and political connects to actually make things happen. DU in those states becomes much more involved in getting people's hunt clubs paid for with WRP dollars than gaining access to rivers or land locked public pieces (these rarely exist).

Within the sphere of public land the conversations in the East it almost always centers around how to manage existing public areas and how they are hunted and how opportunity is allocated.

It would be great if we could hunt below the low water line on rivers in Illinois, but our water law is really poor and once you anchor you are trespassing because the bottom is private property and you can't be moving to shoot from a boat. There are lots of boat launches you can't use to hunt because they are owned by city/county park districts that ban firearms. On the sections through public land the blinds are allocated by annual lottery which means it could be years between consistent opportunity. Honestly a lot of people just don't even think about public land when the state is less than 3%, not 40%. Regardless of how well managed things are it just doesn't effect nearly as many hunters.
 
Somewhat off the subject, but why haven't sportsmen and women held DU's feet to the fire over the relatively low percentage of funds put back into conservation programs? For example, from Charity Navigator: DU (76.3%), TU (88.7%), & RMEF (89.6%). For DU that probably shakes out to more than $10 million a year...
 
I am surprised at the lack of damage control coming from the Memphis palace on this subject. Barely a peep in 2 weeks...
 
Jwill said:
Somewhat off the subject, but why haven't sportsmen and women held DU's feet to the fire over the relatively low percentage of funds put back into conservation programs? For example, from Charity Navigator: DU (76.3%), TU (88.7%), & RMEF (89.6%). For DU that probably shakes out to more than $10 million a year...
Click to expand...

Jwill,
Great point. I looked up Pheasants Forever which is even more of an apples to apples comparison and found that 87.5% of PF funds go into conservation programs. So PF is 11.2% more efficient. One of the reasons is the palatial estate that DU has. I have been to the PF headquarters many times and it is a nondescript office bulding in a St. Paul suburb.

Unfortunately, I think the DU policy of just letting this blow over is working. I have not heard much on this lately. Business as usual in a few months and the fat cats win again.
 
Not so quiet. I added Don Thomas and DU to my news feed temporarily and there is alot of discussion and articles going on out there. I have been reading through forums that linked to a couple of my pages, where the duck hunters are discussing, not just the firing issue, but similar questions, like above, about conservation efforts, impoundments concentrating waterfowl on private land away from public access, and what is being done with the money on state levels. Interesting accounts being relayed.

There were over 20,000 original hits on one of my Don Thomas newsletter archive pages (well outside of my normal distribution), about a 1000 on it just yesterday. I know from rumblings being discussed/planned, I think it will pick up again after turkey day.
 
Excellent analysis Kat, much better than my seat-of-the-pants viewpoint. And I am glad to hear it. I would really love to hear a proper resolution to this. Please keep those of us who are living under a rock informed!
 
MNElkNut, PLWA sent a letter (will be able to post it about Sat.) to DU. It asks some questions very similar to what I am seeing at other forums and in articles.

One of the hunters wrote,
Some years back, I wrote a letter complaining to DU about creating so many projects that could not be hunted, yet provided little or no breeding habitat. In California we generally have more than enough wintering habitat with hundreds of thousands of acres of flooded rice, and the areas they were creating did not benefit duck hunting or duck hunters at all, nor were they beneficial to breeding (which is needed in California).

The response I got back from them was right to the point:
"Ducks unlimited is NOT an organization for duck hunters; it is an organization for the ducks...."
Click to expand...

After all this easement research this week, I would have to say that I think access is the key to all this and the real reason that Thomas was terminated, not because someone had hurt feelings. The interconnections are all there. This easement program, which Kennedy was the president of for 15 years, is integral towards certain strategies which do not benefit the public access hunter, nor necessarily waterfowl habitat conservation, rather the opposite.

Another poster stated, "Little guy v. big guy - 27% of DU's money comes from events, membership, and donors. 13% comes from major gifts/endowments." According to a 2014 independent audit of DU I found this last week, $12,735,445 was revenue from Direct response membership, additional revenue of $40,928,409 net proceeds from committee events (after they deduct event and merchandise cost, original is $92,003,928). $23,859,653 was major gifts. Those 3 are part of the $183,739,520 total assets.
 
Last edited:
Don Thomas is one of the clearest and most compelling voices for hunters and conservation in journalism. Everyone should read his book, How Sportsmen Saved The World. It is truly shameful that DU would kowtow to the whim of a donor, even a major one, to silence that voice. I hope they hear from thousands of their members that DU has lost its way.
 
PLWA wrote a letter to DU on the 20th of November, expressing their concerns over DU's firing and their response to stream access.

Dear Mr. Hall (Chief Exec. Officer, Ducks Unlimited):
I am president of the Montana Public Land and Water Access Association, PLWA. We are a volunteer based, grassroots organization of dedicated hunters, anglers, conservationists, outdoor enthusiasts, and supporters and defenders of the Nation’s public lands. The mission of PLWA is to maintain, restore, and perpetuate public access to the boundaries of all Montana public land and waters. We take the mission very seriously.

PLWA and our many supporters, including many who are, or at least were DU members, are
surprised and baffled by DU’s discharge of Dr. Don Thomas for an article he wrote in the magazine, Outside Bozeman, taking James Cox Kennedy to task for his actions and opposition to stream access in Montana and in turn public access to the streams and lands of our cherished state.

While Dr. Thomas’ discharge by DU is the proximate reason for writing to you, the issues that concern PLWA vis-a-vis Dr. Thomas’ discharge are much bigger. I see the events involving and leading up to his discharge as emblematic of the corrosive and compromising effect of big money in conservation, politics and too many other aspects of American life. I have been advised that Dr. Thomas' discharge was not requested by or influenced by Mr. Kennedy. I am not sure I believe that but I am sure that many people don't believe it.

In Montana, Mr. Kennedy is the face of wealth fueled arrogance and a symbol of the privatization of fish, wildlife and outdoor recreation. Montana has a well-crafted stream access law, which PLWA was instrumental in enacting and subsequently defending multiple times in courts at various levels often with Mr. Kennedy on the other side

Montana’s stream access law arguably is the best in the country and certainly the best in the
West. The law has been challenged repeatedly in the courts including trips to the Montana
Supreme Court and an attempt to get the issue into the U.S. Supreme Court with Mr. Kennedy as a major, maybe the key antagonist. The law has been upheld repeatedly but Mr. Kennedy is unaccepting of the law, and apparently the democratic process that produced it or the judicial process that upheld it.

In discharging Dr. Thomas, DU criticized him for not seeking comment from Mr. Kennedy for the Outside Bozeman article. Dr. Thomas nor anyone else that can read the public record needs to seek comment from Mr. Kennedy. His actions speak.

PLWA is a nonprofit like DU albeit with a tiny budget and no paid staff. We have great empathy for generous supporters as Mr. Kennedy is apparently to DU. However, DU, through its dismissal of Dr. Thomas, in effect, chose a wealthy patron over the legions of outdoors people and users of the public lands and waters in Montana and indeed all the users of the public lands from across the Nation.

I am not sure what message DU is intending to send by its actions but the message that is being received is that DU is increasingly elitist, valuing the hyper wealthy over the broad base of hunters, anglers and outdoor users that truly are the backbone of political support for fish,
wildlife, habitat and the North American Model of Conservation.

One of the DU public statements coming out of this issue is, "DU has no position on the stream access issue in Montana." From my perspective and I believe many other hunters, anglers, and DU members, this translates to not supporting public access. In Montana, stream access has become code for public access. If an organization is not for it, then it is against it. I don't believe there is neutral ground for a preeminent conservation organization such as DU on this issue, especially when the issue involves established law and multiple affirming judicial decisions. The electorate, legislature, and judiciary have spoken on this issue to the great benefit of the people in Montana and visitors from across the Nation and indeed around the world. How can DU not have a position supporting public access
to public lands and waters?

Reduced access to places to hunt and fish has long been identified by numerous studies as one of the primary reasons that participation in these outdoor activities is declining. Mr. Kennedy is merely one of the most visible of an increasing number of wealthy land owners who are illegally blocking public access to public lands and waters that too often goes unchecked. That discourages, indeed thwarts, participation in these activities by the broad public. Privatization of fish, wildlife, angling and hunting are increasing and devolving into the European model for these resources and activities. The North American Model of Conservation is steadily eroding.

DU purports to be a grassroots organization. Anyone can leaf through the DU Magazine and see that the advertising is aimed at the typical hunter who buys and values his pump or automatic shotgun and related gear. The average DU member makes up the bulk of the membership that DU points to in its multifaceted efforts to demonstrate the breadth of its mission support and political muscle; but DU’s actions in this instance fly in the face of the grassroots members, especially in Montana.

I encourage DU to join PLWA in publicly and substantively supporting public access to the public lands and waters in Montana and throughout the United States. We all have a heritage of broad citizen participation in conservation, hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation to defend and perpetuate or it will disappear.

Very truly yours,
John Gibson
President
Click to expand...
 
I agree that was a great letter. Also, a letter from someone with clout. Hopefully, they will listen.

Curious, would the writer go back to DU if was apologized to? I am hard core and would not! But the writer is invested in conversation!
 
katqanna said:
PLWA wrote a letter to DU on the 20th of November, expressing their concerns over DU's firing and their response to stream access.
Click to expand...

Very well written, conveyed my thoughts perfectly. I was just asked last week to buy a DU calendar and had to decline. One of the local chapters leaders didn't know about this ordeal.
 
DU's official response is that Dr. Thomas's termination was not requested by Cox Kennedy, but was originated by the DU Board because the stream access article was "vitriolic" and unfair in its failure to seek comment from Kennedy, a "member of the DU family." First off, Dr. Thomas's article was clearly an opinion piece intended to stake out a position on the stream access fight, and made no pretense of being an objective news story. And, yes, Thomas is a superb writer, so it's not surprising his words were particularly effective in making Kennedy look bad.

Second, even if Kennedy the billionaire media mogul needed another opportunity get his position on record, what would he have said in response to Thomas's article? I am not a billionaire trying to keep the average Montana citizen off my section of the Ruby? Thomas has me all wrong, I really do believe in the stream access law? I haven't spent millions on lawyers trying to thwart a Montana law enacted by voters and upheld by its courts?

If it is true that Kennedy did not suggest or direct Dr. Thomas's firing (which no one believes) here is his chance to improve his public image and take the pressure off the "DU family." All he has to do is write the DU Board saying not only was it not his idea to fire Dr. Thomas, but he is not the kind of guy who would even want someone fired for taking an opposing position in a public debate. We have him all wrong. He believes in the first amendment, and while he appreciates his wealthy cronies on the DU Board looking out for him, he would like to see Thomas reinstated.

Wonder if we will see that letter anytime soon, or will the great conservationist let DU continue to wallow in this situation?
 
I forgot to add this the other day, got my hands full with game processing right when I was dealing with an organizational move and some construction, feel like I am living at a bloody construction site.

Anyway, I finally got the PLWA Montana Supreme Court Case rendered and uploaded to youtube, so people can see for themselves what Kennedy's attorney stated on his behalf about our Stream Access law and Constitution.

Also, below is Montana Sportsmen Alliance's letter to DU, written by Jeff Herbert

Gentlemen,
I'm a retired Montana FWP wildlife biologist who spent the better part of my career engaged in migratory game bird management and habitat conservation at the state, flyway and national level. I have worked closely with Ducks Unlimited staff on a variety of initiatives, including some of the very first private lands projects to be delivered in the country. I have worked on a local DU committee, spoken at statewide DU events and ironically, am wearing a DU fleece zip-T as I write this letter.

I'm an avid hunter and angler and an ardent conservationist who strongly endorses the public trust doctrine as it applies to our valuable fish and wildlife resources. This doctrine is foundational to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation that DU has both contributed to and benefited from. Furthermore, I recognize and applaud the contributions by private landowners to these conservation efforts and the rights associated with their private property.

With that said, I find your recent action to terminate the contract of E. Donnall Thomas Jr. incredibly disappointing on several levels. I will not delve into the specifics of this conflict other than to say that Montana sportsmen and women hold dear the culture of our hunting and fishing heritage and the constitutional and statutory elements like the Stream Access Law that sustain the waters of Montana and access to those waters as a public trust resource. These same men and women serve as the backbone of local DU Chapters, the heart and soul of the organization.

As I consider terminating my long-term association with DU, I would like to pose several questions to you from an organization standpoint. How do you explain the dichotomy of your actions - on one hand strongly endorsing the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (November/December 2015 issue of Ducks Unlimited) and on the other, tacitly supporting an individual seeking not only to undermine public access to a public resource but in fact, to privatize it? By your actions it appears that DU places far greater value on the contributions of a wealthy donor and trustee than it does to the average angler/hunter from Montana who largely agrees with the premise of the article. What picture does that paint of a conservation organization built on the passion of its members? Will future actions/management decisions reflect a strong, publically engaged conservation ethic or one built around big money and exclusivity?

Jeff Herbert
Montana Sportsmen Alliance
Click to expand...
 
Anyway, I finally got the PLWA Montana Supreme Court Case rendered and uploaded to youtube, so people can see for themselves what Kennedy's attorney stated on his behalf about our Stream Access law and Constitution.
Click to expand...

Thank-you for uploading this. Long video but very interesting.
 
Gerald, you're welcome. I was there for the hearing. Part of the missing segment is Mr. Kaufman getting more adamant about stream access and our constitution, but there is enough there that you can see Kennedy's position and intentions.

I searched everywhere and put out some inquires for a complete video, audio or at least a transcript to fill in the gap, but sadly, I couldnt find anything. My hope is someone seeing this video might have a complete video and I can replace the video or at least put a patch up showing the missing part.

And, this will help to defend Don's article, as people will be able to confirm his statements.
 
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

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,567
Messages
2,025,326
Members
36,233
Latest member
Dadzic

Share this page

Back
Top