Don Thomas fired by DU

**Stripa Swipa** · 11-10-2015, 12:08 PM

Not sure if any of you big money DU types know about this or have a point of view from the DU side of this. I saw it directly from Don so I don't know much or have an opinion either way.

Ducks, Politics, and Money
As many of you know, I have been a regular contributor to Ducks Unlimited magazine for nearly twenty years, serving as their Field Editor and writing the back page column in every issue. Not any more.
In October, 2015 I wrote a piece for Outside Bozeman magazine about the long Montana legal battle to secure and maintain public access to the Ruby River in accordance with the state’s stream access law. (I will make a copy of that text available to anyone on request.) To summarize a complex issue for those unfamiliar with the case, wealthy Atlanta businessman James Cox Kennedy engaged in extensive litigation to prevent such access, only to be denied repeatedly in court due to the efforts of the Montana Public Land and Water Access Association. While the article was not complimentary to Kennedy, no one has challenged the accuracy of the reporting.
James Cox Kennedy is a major financial contributor to Ducks Unlimited. On November 10, a Ducks Unlimited functionary informed me that my position with the magazine was terminated because of Cox’s displeasure with the article.
Several points deserve emphasis. The Ruby River article had nothing whatsoever to do with ducks or Ducks Unlimited (DU hereafter). The article did strongly support the rights of hunters and other outdoor recreationists to enjoy land and water to which they are entitled to access, and DU is a hunters’ organization. By terminating me for no reason related to my work for the magazine and the organization, DU has essentially taken the position that wealthy donors matter more than the outdoor recreationists they purport to represent.
As an outdoorsman and conservationist who supports the North American Model and the Public Trust Doctrine, I find DU’s action reprehensible. As a journalist, I find it chilling. Wildlife advocates today face ever increasing pressures to abandon these principles in favor of the commercialization of these public resources, largely from wealthy individuals like James Cox Kennedy. If every journalist reporting on these issues faces this kind of vindictive retribution, the future of wildlife and wildlife habitat—not to mention the hunters and anglers of ordinary means who form the backbone of groups like DU—is bleak indeed.
This issue is not about me or my professional relationship with Ducks Unlimited magazine. It is about integrity and the future of wildlife in America. If you share my concerns—especially if you are a DU member—I encourage you to contact the organization (www.ducks.org attn: Dale Hall), express your opinion, and take whatever further action you might consider appropriate.
Don Thomas
Lewistown, MT
Here’s the link to the original piece:
http://online.publicationprinters.com/launch.aspx…

**Catdaddy** · 11-10-2015, 12:17 PM

"DU has essentially taken the position that wealthy donors matter more than the outdoor recreationists they purport to represent."

When improving habitat at the cost of $ 58,000 per hatched nest, you have to have wealthy donors.

http://www.tonydean.com/articlese161...sectionid=6969

**FEETDOWN** · 11-10-2015, 12:29 PM

"DU has essentially taken the position that wealthy donors matter more than the outdoor recreationists they purport to represent."

He says this like it's breaking news.......

**GobblerHntr** · 11-10-2015, 12:47 PM

Liquor & Sticker Bo!

**JABIII** · 11-10-2015, 01:26 PM

Good on DU.

**Carolina Counsel** · 11-10-2015, 01:37 PM

I think that sucks for Thomas. I've fished the Ruby many times. What that jackleg does to keep the public off of public water is shameful. That being said, money talks . . .

**JABIII** · 11-10-2015, 01:42 PM

This is the same jackleg everyone was praising here a few months ago...

http://www.clemson.edu/cafls/departments/kennedycenter/

**smallwater** · 11-10-2015, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by JABIII

Good on DU.

Can you further explain? My opinion is fairly uninformed regarding this matter.

**JABIII** · 11-10-2015, 01:46 PM

Screw the whiny liberal media. The courts will decide what is what, not some dipshit who wants to ease up as far as possible onto somebody else's property.

**Elcid_Fowler** · 11-10-2015, 01:50 PM

You want to play big boy politics you better be ready for the big boys to play back. You can't expect this to not happen when you target someone with deep pockets and ownership right to lands.

**Old River Rat** · 11-10-2015, 03:30 PM

Game over he could buy the whole state. Sorry you got fired. Something better
will happen for you.

**Stripa Swipa** · 11-10-2015, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by JABIII

Screw the whiny liberal media. The courts will decide what is what, not some dipshit who wants to ease up as far as possible onto somebody else's property.

Jabracadabra, I haven't researched the issue at hand enough to have an informed opinion but I didn't mean to spook you with the ghost of Nab. Your characterization of Don is way off but I understand it.

Sounds like nobody has any "inside baseball" on this one.

**marsh chicken** · 11-10-2015, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Stripa Swipa

Jabracadabra, I haven't researched the issue at hand enough to have an informed opinion but I didn't mean to spook you with the ghost of Nab. Your characterization of Don is way off but I understand it.

Sounds like nobody has any "inside baseball" on this one.

No "inside baseball" needed. Call it a hunch, but I would guess...A millionaire donor got bad press from a writer. He told DU to get rid of the guy or wave bye bye to his donations. DU obliged him.

**Stripa Swipa** · 11-10-2015, 05:17 PM

That's Don's claim, no doubt.

**mudflat** · 11-10-2015, 05:41 PM

Butt hurt he sounds!

**JABIII** · 11-10-2015, 06:00 PM

"As a journalist, I find it chilling. "

Just sounds like every other self important asshole media member who think that the rules don't apply to them.

Rule #1- Those who have the gold make the rules.

If you believe that you are not bound by rule #1 then you are either a moron, or, nope, you ARE simply a moron...

Rubberhead* · 11-10-2015, 08:11 PM

I have hats all over the house and in the back of my car that say either "Ducks Unlimited Sponsor" or "Delta Waterfowl Sponsor" and even one or two that say "South Carolina Waterfowl Association Sponsor". They're all more than 15 years old.

**JABIII** · 11-12-2015, 07:33 AM

Columnist fired after writing article critical of Ducks Unlimited donor
Updated 6 hrs ago 3

The Ruby River is the subject of a land battle between Montana and Jim Kennedy.

HELENA — Ducks Unlimited has cut ties with a longtime field editor and columnist for the conservation group's magazine after he wrote an article critical of a former board member's legal fight over public access on his land in Montana.

Don Thomas, a Lewistown writer said Wednesday the Ducks Unlimited magazine editor who fired him on Monday told him the article published last month in the magazine Outside Bozeman upset its subject, media mogul Jim Kennedy, the chairman of Cox Enterprises.

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.

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.

"He had no business going to the Ducks Unlimited board and saying, 'I'm angry at this guy, fire him,'" Thomas said. Reporters "have to have the freedom to operate without the threat of retribution hanging over us," he added.

Ducks Unlimited spokesman Matt Coffey released a statement that said Thomas has the right to express his opinions as he sees fit, and Ducks Unlimited has the right to choose who contributes to its publications.

"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," the statement said.

The organization's editorial staff and leadership made the decision to end its relationship with Thomas, and Kennedy did not ask for any repercussions against Thomas, Coffey said.

Cox Enterprises spokeswoman Elizabeth Olmstead declined to comment.

"This is a matter between Mr. Thomas and Ducks Unlimited," she said in a statement.

Thomas first started writing for Ducks Unlimited magazine in 1998 and was given a regular column in 2001. He appeared on the magazine's masthead as a field editor, though he was always a freelance contributor and never an employee of the organization.

His article in Outside Bozeman focused on a long-running dispute after Kennedy built fences along county roads and bridges next to his land that prevented the public from reaching the Ruby River.

Kennedy argued in the lawsuit against the Public Land and Water Access Association that Montana laws allowing public access to streams from bridges and within waterways' high-water marks are unconstitutionally violate his property rights.

The Montana Supreme Court last year rejected Kennedy's arguments, and the case is back in district court.

Thomas wrote in his article for Outside Bozeman that Kennedy's strategy is to use his wealth to tie up the courts until he can make the state's access laws go away.

"The most feasible strategy for accomplishing that goal is to outspend the opposition and litigate it to death with teams of lawyers, dispatching them on command like the Wicked Witch of the West unleashing her winged monkeys on the Land of Oz," Thomas wrote.

In his interview with The Associated Press, he criticized Ducks Unlimited for firing him over an article that was not published in the organization's magazine, and about an issue — public access — on which the organization has not taken a position.

"This is not about my job," he said. "This is about the inappropriate influence of money in the decision-making process of a grassroots organization and the freedom of the press."

http://billingsgazette.com/news/stat...34a085b77.html