Don Thomas has been fired by DU

Pete McMiller

Pete McMiller

Well-known member
This is disgusting. Those of you who don't know him. Don Thomas is an avid duck hunter, trout fisherman, traditional archer and dog man. We writes for many magazines and is wonderful speaker and conservationist. Oh, forgot to add, in his 'real' job is a family doctor.

Here is the liink to his open letter. http://www.emwh.org/archive/2015/11-9-2015.htm

The following is an article, written by conservation hunter/angler and author, Don Thomas, that he just sent to me. Don was fired for basically writing about a public access issue here in Montana, that offended the billionaire involved. The billionaire pulled strings at a conservation organization, whose magazine Don wrote for and got him fired. Not only is this an injustice, but this is a threat to conservation and is not isolated to just this organization or this writer, there have been others here in Montana that have been affected by political string pulling. This story, and its implications for conservation, needed to be shared.

Ducks, Politics, and Money by Don Thomas


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, A Rift Runs Through It, 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 our 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
 
Troubling to say the least. That article was the best part of the magazine. The rest of it was the same regurgitated stuff you see in every other magazine.

Mike
 
We are of course hearing just one side of the case, and I don't know his employment status with DU (exempt employee, freelancer, contractor, etc) but he might have a wrongful termination case.

I would hate to see DU spend money on a legal battle though if it could be spent on conservation instead.
 
I have met Don Thomas and always looked forward to his writing in Traditional Bowhunter magazine. He is a gentleman and a tireless advocate in Montana for traditional bowhunting and for our stream access laws. I quit giving money to DU years ago as I felt my donation dollars were better spent going to the The Nature Conservancy. I don't doubt for a minute that DU fired him because the letter he wrote to Outside Bozeman magazine pissed off James Cox Kennedy.
 
Last edited:
Peter:
Is this the E. Donnall Thomas, Jr. that writes the back page for the Mag, and writes for Retriever Journal? If so, wtf were these guys thinking?

Is their a contact point, other than an e-mail tree that we can express of views? Like a direct e-mail to the present CEO of DU?

He is without doubt one of the most literate and articulate outdoor writer in the field today.
 
Have been in DU way back. DU has changed to a money maker. Was on a committee for years and bowed out years ago. Selling cheap cast birds, prints and real cheap guns at dinners is BAD. Give nice products and quality guns and the members will spend money... DU is getting Frugal???????
 
Wow! I'm very disappointed. I always looked forward to his articles in the back of the DU magazine. They were always just the right length and very well written. I just bought his book The Language of Wings: Essays on Waterfowl not too long ago. I'm about halfway through it now and have yet to be disappointed in any of his writing. Anything I can do to help on the matter let me know.


Steve
 
Yes James the one and only E. Donnall Thomas. He is a wonderful writer and a tireless advocate for our passions. A damned shame.
 
Pete I also will express my thoughts to the Ducks Unlimited regarding this decision, to my own sorrow, I'm not surprised , after serving for years on local chapter work, I have witness the decisions catering to wealthy donors, I no longer regard the DU with the same respect I had when I started.it seems like Delta is way more aligned with the more down to earth working man, again my 2 cents...
 
I wrote to DU yesterday, ATTN: Dale Hall, and received the following response from Matt Coffey. You may want to direct any comments you have to him. His email address is at the bottom.



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.



Matt Coffey
Senior Communications Specialist
Ducks Unlimited
Office: (901) 758-3764
Cell: (843) 263-7445
mcoffey@ducks.org
 
As pointed out in Matt Coffey's response to my email, this issue involving stream access has NOTHING to do with DU's primary mission. That said, DU should not have done anything about it. Mr. Kennedy obviously had his feelings hurt. He has plenty of resources to tell his side of the story any way he would like. Given his apparently litigious nature, he will probably sue Don Thomas for defamation, which would be frivolous (but that hasn't stopped him before if you believe what Don wrote in A Rift Runs Through It).

Hopefully Mr. Kennedy makes a very substantial gift to DU to compensate for what was lost in Don Thomas.

Mike
 
I would think if you want the attention of an office type (sadly I am one), your response to the DU brass should be something along these lines.
As a gong concern organization I can understand your position, however myself and a # of your other members likely identify with the opposite side of the story. How many members will have to forego their membership in order to offset Mr. Kennedy and realize this position is unfair. Count me as #1.
 
That reply from Coffey was honest and clear, I'm impressed. HOWEVER, lots of places to do good with my money, DU just slipped down on the list.
 
I ended my membership with DU about 10 years ago because to me it seemed like the organization was more concerned with maintaining itself than with Habitat and hunters it was originally intended to serve. This is my opinion and I do believe that there are a lot of DU members that still have the original intent in their hearts but not at the top. Personally I could not continue to support the organization. This is why this does not surprise me at all. That said I also firmly believe that any organization no matter how well intended will stray and become corrupt over time. Anybody ever read Animal Farm? Unfortunately people are people and its just the way it is.
 
Here's a copy of the article for everybody's perusal (and the other side of the story). I haven't had a chance to read it in it's entirety yet, so can't comment on it any further.

A Rift Runs Through It Appears in FishingThe New WestFall 2015Rivers & Streams Thomas, Jr., E. Donnall
Fighting for access to the Ruby River.
Seyler Lane isn’t much of a road. It isn’t even much of a lane, and chances are most of us never would have heard of it except for three accidents of geography. First, Seyler Lane is a public road with an established prescriptive easement. Second, it crosses the Ruby River by way of a bridge, a popular point of river access for anglers and recreational floaters. Third, the land surrounding the bridge is owned by James Cox Kennedy. Couple these facts with Kennedy’s wealth and arrogance and pit them against the determination of a small group of Montanans daring enough to believe that the public should actually be able to utilize public resources, and you have the makings of a legal storm that has rocked the state to its core.
The legal history will emerge in due course. Since I don’t like reading court cases any more than you do, let’s meet the cast of characters first.
Wearing the white hat—Montana’s very own Public Land and Water Access Association (PLWA from here on in), a group of unpaid volunteers that for years has played a crucial role in reopening illegally blocked access to public lands and waters throughout the state. Most Montanans wouldn’t realize how much public land access has been denied this way save for efforts by PLWA. Although basically a ragtag guerilla group fighting an odds-against battle against powerful, well-financed interests, its record of success in the courts has been remarkable.
Wearing the black hat—Media mogul Kennedy, chairman of Atlanta-based Cox Enterprises, 49th wealthiest individual in the country (per Forbes, 2008), but ultimately a selfish man who inherited his assets and would be of little consequence except for the staggering number of zeros on the numbers at the end of his bank account statements. In fairness—which isn’t easy—his online biography credits him with a number of philanthropic undertakings, including some that have been good for wildlife and the environment. Why he chose to check these values at the border when he entered Montana remains a mystery.
The issue—Kennedy’s apparent belief that a remarkable body of Montana law establishing the public’s right to recreate freely on the state’s waterways does not apply to rich people. It’s really that simple.
A Brief History of Stream Access
In 1979, two Butte anglers concerned about landowner harassment on nearby streams consulted with Bozeman attorney Jim Goetz. Their efforts eventually resulted in the creation of the Montana Coalition for Stream Access, Inc. (MCSAI), which became the Public Land Access Association in 1986, which in turn became the Public Land and Water Access Association in 2007.
In 1977, future MCSAI members filed suit against a landowner along the Dearborn River who was harassing recreational floaters. (The landowner was a distant relative of my wife, Lori. What a family I married into!) MCSAI v. Curran wound up in the Montana Supreme Court in 1984, at which time the court ruled, citing the ancient public-trust doctrine, that “any surface waters capable of use for recreational purposes are available for such use by the public.”
A second key case arose when PLWA brought suit against a landowner threatening to string a cable across the Beaverhead River to prevent recreational floating. Again in 1984, the court ruled in MCSAI v. Hildreth that if the stream is navigable for recreational purposes it can be used as such up to the high water marks without regard to ownership of surrounding land.
These cases provided the background for a crucial piece of legislation: Montana’s 1985 Stream Access Law. The bill was drafted with input from many stakeholders including landowners and received broad bipartisan support (remember that concept?). Subsequently, a group led by Martinsdale rancher Jack Galt asked the district court to find the law unconstitutional. When the court ruled against the landowners, they appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, which upheld all major provisions of the law, now regarded as one of the most enlightened and progressive statutes of its kind in the nation.
Further challenges were probably inevitable. Disgruntled landowners filed suits to overturn the law in 2000 and 2001. District court upheld the law, as did the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on both occasions.
Case settled, right? Wrong—you still have to reach the stream in order to float it.
Screw You, I’m Rich
Prior to Cox’s purchase of his trophy ranch along the Ruby, the Seyler Lane bridge and two others provided river access to a wide cross-section of outdoor recreationists ranging from visiting anglers carrying thousand-dollar fly rods to college students toting six-packs of beer to sustain them during long floats on hot summer days. No one ever questioned Kennedy’s right to privacy on his adjoining land. But Montana law established public right to the water, and original owner Bud Seyler hadn’t challenged public river access from the bridge, creating a “prescriptive easement.” Furthermore, in 2000, state attorney general Joseph Mazurek issued an opinion stating that the public may gain access to streams and rivers by using a bridge, its right of way, and abutments, and that the road easement does not narrow at a bridge.
But not according to Kennedy, who began to physically bar access by erecting barbed wire and electric fences across the easement between the bridge and the water in 2003. When Madison County refused to remove the barriers, PLWA filed suit in 2004 to establish public access via three bridges across the Ruby, including Seyler Lane. Kennedy joined the fray in 2007, asking the court to bar all access at the bridges. Judge Loren Tucker found in favor of PLWA on two of the bridges, but delayed a ruling on Seyler Lane for procedural reasons.
Meanwhile, the legislature recognized the need to clarify this contentious issue. The result was the 2009 Bridge Access Law, stating that the public must be allowed to access streams and rivers from public roads and bridges and establishing a legal protocol for resolving disputes. It’s remarkable that a legal team as well-paid as Kennedy’s evidently managed to overlook this statute.
In 2012, Judge Tucker issued a delayed ruling on the Seyler Lane portion of the original lawsuit. The public had been crossing the Ruby at Seyler Lane for a hundred years. Furthermore, the county maintained the road and built the bridge. The existence of a prescriptive easement was not in question. The case turned on what the easement allowed. The lower court ruled against PLWA via a tortuous opinion that no one really understood, holding that two separate easements existed but neither provided legal access to the river. PLWA appealed. The Montana Supreme Court rejected Judge Tucker’s two easement theory and directed him to establish Seyler Lane as a safe and convenient travel route.
The legal maneuvering grew even more complex when Kennedy cross-appealed in order to attack the validity of the Montana Stream Access law itself, which he claimed represented an unconstitutional “taking.” During argument, Supreme Court Justice Patricia Cotter pointed out that the Montana constitution states “all the waters are the property of the state for the use of its people,” and asked Cox’s attorney if he was requesting the court to declare the state constitution unconstitutional. The answer was: “Yes.” Hmmm… an unconstitutional constitution? Where would rich people be without lawyers?
In 2014, the Montana Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion upholding the Stream Access Law and clarifying the public’s use of rights-of-way. In a separate 5-2 decision, they also rejected Judge Tucker’s two-easement theory of the Seyler Lane access case and remanded the matter back to district court for resolution. PLWA attorney Devlan Geddes called the decision one of the most important public-road legal rulings ever made in the state.
The next district-court hearing was held on August 3, 2015. Those of us hoping for a definitive resolution should have known better. Procedural maneuvers delayed a ruling, which is now scheduled for mid-September. That’s where matters stand as of this writing. I am not holding my breath. In court, delaying tactics always benefit the side with the deepest pockets. The 12-year record outlined above speaks for itself.
Beyond the Ruby
Most Montanans familiar with the Seyler Lane saga recognize that the dispute is about more than the ability to slide a raft into the Ruby River. James Cox Kennedy—arguably the most unpopular man in southwestern Montana—took an assault on the state’s popular Stream Access Law all the way to the Supreme Court despite abundant legal precedent upholding this legislation. He and his legal team must have known that their chances of victory were remote—Kennedy’s shortcomings are ethical, not intellectual. The cost of litigation must have been substantial, although it likely represented little more than cookie-jar money to him. Montana taxpayers bore their own share of the cost of this spiteful suit, for a Supreme Court does not run on fumes. Meanwhile, PLWA continues to thrive on volunteer effort and small contributions from people who cling to the notion that the public has rights, and that despite the odds, big money will not always prevail in the end.
Kennedy’s legal maneuvering makes it clear that he would love to see Montana’s Stream Access Law 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.
He has the means to do it. PLWA is an underfunded grassroots organization driven by the energy of people who care. Readers concerned about their future ability to enjoy Montana’s outdoors—the reason why most of us live here in the first place—can visit plwa.org to find out how to help.
And enjoy the fishing—if you can still get to it.
 
Last edited:
Matt Coffey sounds like a tool....but what else could he say? I am sure Kennedy could send an email to DU and they would tell Matt that he had 15 minutes to clear out his office. Because, after all, Mr. Kennedy is a "volunteer leader." Makes me want to puke
 
Boy if what Thomas wrote was truly "vilification" a wholllllllleeeee lot of poster on this "volunteer site" would have been taken out behind the boat ramp and stomped in the mud like a Merganser long ago, (myself included before someone takes offense).

Certainly not complimentary but I don't see that as something that Kennedy couldn't have responded to or that he was "vilified". My Grandmother would have called this a "hit dog hollers" response. Sad to see Thomas go but sadder still to see DU on the opposite side of the fence on "access".

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top