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...

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...

Flatland Crusoe said:

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).

Click to expand...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

Our goals are to permanently protect the most critical elk habitat and to increase public access opportunities.

Click to expand...