Don Thomas has been fired by DU

Thanks for that article Steve. I despise the kind of arrogance shown by Kennedy. It appears the other side of the story is even worse than first indicated. What a jerk.
 
Thomas could have chosen some lighter words to identify Kennedy, but in the context of Montana land and water access going back to the 1800's range wars, it seems appropriate. The gile of land owners taking away the rights of the public calls for vilification. Its the American thing to do.

The context of public access in MT has been hashed out in courts to result in one of the best state laws in the nation. Wealthy land owners continue to show up and try to go around the law using their resources. Kennedy is being called on it. Too fricklin' bad. Suck it up buttercup. Put on your big boy pants and stop being such a douche.

A wealthy man got butt hurt. Well, how about thousands of sponsor and member level common men get butt hurt? The math says that's more money that directly effects all the numbers that DU needs to gain support.

Edit: this is a good run down of the situation.
http://www.outdoornews.com/November-2015/DU-parts-ways-with-Closing-Time-columnist/

Edit: the letter from DU and a scanned version of the article complete with cartoons.
http://www.outdoornews.com/Matt Young letter.pdf
 
Last edited:
I contacted DU, and there response was the same as someone else has posted. They also sent the article Mr. Thomas wrote. I read it, and maybe a bit harsh on labeling Mr Kennedy but as I stated to DU, in no way was DU mentioned in any way in the article. Nor was there stance, opinion, etc. So to let Mr. Thomas no longer write for them was clear a monartary issue concerning their rich donor. And proves to all, that money can buy what you want..
 
Montana has the absolute best stream access law in the US, and it is because of advocates like Don Thomas. A regular guy like me has access to thousands of miles of streams and rivers on which to hunt and fish. It is one of the reasons I feel lucky to live here. Rich jerks like Kennedy, aging rock stars and assorted Hollywood types come to Montana, buy up lots of land, and then start trying to set up a private fiefdom to keep out the riff raff by challenging our state stream access laws.
 
Last edited:
Its time to renew my various annual memberships. I think I will write a note on my DU renewal telling them to ask Kennedy for an extra $250 as I am going to put my funding into other non-profits.
 
Montana has the absolute best stream access law in the US, and it is because of advocates like Don Thomas. A regular guy like me has access to thousands of miles of streams and rivers on which to hunt and fish. It is one of the reasons I feel lucky to live here.
Click to expand...

BINGO. Don's "personal attack" on Mr. Kennedy is nothing compared to what I consider a personal attack on me, my legal access rights as a Montana citizen, and those of many other Montanans.

The "other side of the story" regarding Kennedy's challenges to Montana's Stream Access Law...


High court upholds public right to access Montana streams
January 16, 2014 2:00 pm • By CHARLES S. JOHNSON State Bureau
HELENA — The Montana Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the state’s steam access law as it reversed part of a District Court decision and ruled that the public can use a public prescriptive road to gain access to a river.

The dispute dates back to 2004 over the use of a public road to gain access to the Ruby River.

James Cox Kennedy, CEO of Cox Enterprises, an Atlanta-based media company, who owned the land under the road, had raised the challenge to the state stream access law in the appeal before the Supreme Court. The steam access law was passed in 1985 following several court decisions expanding the public’s right to access to certain streams.

Kennedy had erected fences, including an electrified one, and posted signs next to the guard rail along the road to tell the public it was not allowed access to the Ruby River from that site.

The Supreme Court rebuffed Kennedy’s challenge to the stream access law as part of its overall decision.

“Kennedy has offered no convincing reason to disrupt what has long been settled constitutional law in Montana,” Justice Mike Wheat wrote for the court.

In a 5-2 decision, the court ruled in favor of the Public Lands/Water Access Association and overturned part of District Judge Loren Tucker’s 2012 decision. Tucker had concluded there was no public prescriptive easement beyond the fences at Seyler Bridge to gain access to the Ruby River in Madison County.

The Supreme Court concluded that Tucker “erred by not finding a secondary easement that is independent and separate from the public easement.”

“The areas that are reasonably necessary to support and maintain Seyler Bridge, and to ensure the public’s safe and convenient use of it, are included in the Seyler Lane public road right-of-way,” Wheat wrote for the majority.

The court remanded to Tucker to consider the evidence in the record and conduct whatever additional proceedings he considers necessary “to establish a definite width of the public right-of-way, applying the principles stated in this opinion.”

“We further determine that the scope of use of the public road right-of-way is not limited to the adverse usage through which it was acquired and that any foreseeable uses of a public road right-of-say, including recreation use, are permitted,” the Supreme Court majority said.

The court also rejected the “takings” argument raised by Kennedy, who owns land adjacent to Seyler Lane and Lewis Lane and sought compensation for the property he claims was taken from him.

“Finally, Kennedy’s takings argument does not hold water,” the court majority said. “He presents no persuasive argument that a compensable property interest has been taken from him or that we should overturn our precedent and disrupt long-settled constitutional law.”

Joining Wheat in the majority were Supreme Court justices Patricia Cotter and Beth Baker and District Judges Kurt Krueger of Butte and Mike Menahan of Helena, substituting for former Justice Brian Morris and Chief Justice Mike McGrath, respectively.

Justices Laurie McKinnon and Jim Rice dissented in part from Wheat’s decision and concurred in part.

“In my view, the court’s opinion disregards more than a century of precedent governing prescriptive easements and undermines the balance the Legislature has struck between landowners and recreationists,” McKinnon said.

J. Devlan Geddes, the Bozeman attorney representing the Public Land/Water Access Association, was pleased by the ruling. He called it “a really important decision for Montanans across the board.”

“I think the Montana Supreme Court has dotted the ‘i,’ crossed the’t’ and put the period on the stream access case in the state,” he said.

As for the decision itself, “the meat of it is that a public prescriptive road, once established, may be used by the public for all lawful purposes, including, most important to this case, accessing rivers and streams.”

He said county roads are established several ways.

The normal way is when someone petitions for a road and the county creates it.

Another way, Geddes said, is through subdivisions when the developer deeds easements to the county or state to make sure people have access.

A third way involves public prescriptive roads that have been in place for a long time. They are established after the public has used it for five or more years.

“Seyler Lane was in existence since the late 1880s, presumably by people on horseback and wagons and people trailing cattle and sheep,” Geddes said. “The court said once established, its uses may expand in the future.”
 
Last edited:
On top of all this commotion, I have never been a fan of the DU banquets and shameless money begging. I have seen some of the D.U. projects that are not productive. Mostly I am put off by the elitist high rollers of D.U. What has been a growing disappointment has now become a BIG disappointment. I for one will not renew my membership in D.U. Take a look at Delta and see what you think. It has seemed to me that D.U. has just been interested in buying land where as Delta has a multi point plan including predator control and improving the habitat that they have. Goodbye Ducks Unlimited. P.S. their magazine has become a catalog.
 
Tom
I have to agree with your statement. Having been a member and helping with their dinners for years, I realized the truth and parted company years ago with some criticism from many hunters. Get that big buck yet?
wis boz
 
On top of all this commotion, I have never been a fan of the DU banquets and shameless money begging. I have seen some of the D.U. projects that are not productive. Mostly I am put off by the elitist high rollers of D.U. What has been a growing disappointment has now become a BIG disappointment. I for one will not renew my membership in D.U. Take a look at Delta and see what you think. It has seemed to me that D.U. has just been interested in buying land where as Delta has a multi point plan including predator control and improving the habitat that they have. Goodbye Ducks Unlimited. P.S. their magazine has become a catalog.
Click to expand...
 
I attended my first and last DU banquet a couple of weeks ago. Luckily a buddy's company sponsored the table, so I didn't have to pay.
Completely unimpressed, it was all about the $$$.
Once my "free" DU membership runs out, I wont renew. Will be sending my money to Delta from now on.
 
It's been years since I last went to a DU banquet. Lots of guys pretending to be high rollers who had too much to drink and were bidding up the prices on a bunch of Chinese made "Official DU" junk and mediocre "limited edition" prints. (is it really a limited edition if they print 5,000 copies?). Delta and the Nature Conservancy are the organizations I prefer to support these days
 
I attended my first and last DU banquet a couple of weeks ago. Luckily a buddy's company sponsored the table, so I didn't have to pay.
Completely unimpressed, it was all about the $$$.
Once my "free" DU membership runs out, I wont renew. Will be sending my money to Delta from now on.
Click to expand...


Carl

Just buy extra federal state duck stamps. Less skimming there than about anywhere.

Eric
 
Whatever mistakes DU made in this matter it's not fair, IMO, to bash them for not being prudent with the money they take in. Charity Navigators rates them three stars, (out of four), with an 82 out of 100 rating and shows over 75% of every dollar spent on their projects and services.

Delta Waterfowl ranks slightly higher in both areas but consider the impact of close to $200M for DU vs $8M for Delta and then ask yourself who is accomplishing more that benefits waterfowl...

I'm not saying that what happened with this Thomas debacle is right, (and in fact think DU made a huge mistake), and I'm not saying that I agree with how DU spends every dollar. I will say this. If you don't wish to buy the "cheap Chinese Crap" and the "unlimited limited prints" they sell to "drunk high roller wanna be's" then you most certainly aren't being forced to and I'm sure that those "drunken pretend high rollers" appreciate not having to bid against you.

Fact is DU does much that is good for Waterfowl. Make that "MUCH".
Not the first time a volunteer based organization has done something stupid and won't be the last. But that doesn't change the fact that they remain the Waterfowl oriented organization with the most impact in the game.

Maybe we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water?


Steve
 
Last edited:
Also a good point.
Maybe we should all let controversy settle before making knee-jerk decisions....
 
That's a well written article Dave, thanks for posting the link. Chad is correct, at least in my mind, it's about integrity. Certainly DU will hardly be aware if a couple thousand of it's members don't renew over this but what other avenue do we have to make our voices heard? As I'm sure they are counting on, for the majority of the members and public at large this will all blow over in a very short time it will be back to the business as usual. The problem is that it taints the ethical waters and that taint is going to be a lingering taste in at least my mouth for a long time. It won't be the end of the great things DU is doing nor the end of the big money machine but the respect it has garnered over the years is definitely at risk. One isn't awarded respect, it is given based on ethics and integrity.
 
Chad article is on point. But the last paragraph says it all. Whether we all choose to renew or not? Either way, we all should let them know how we feel.. Both Mr. Coffey & Mr. Young send me emails regarding this issue & both stated as Chad said they did. But right now anything mailed to me from DU is getting "Return to Sender" put on it and mailed right back to them...
Just my small way of letting them know my displeasure with this issue...
 
Agreed, Pete and Jay. Saying nothing would be a mistake. Sadly, somewhere along the way a widely-held belief has emerged that a boycott or calling for someone's head to roll are the first options in voicing one's difference of opinion...and regarding darned near everything. Ceasing to donate to DU and other conservation organizations would only increase their reliance on the James Cox Kennedys of the world.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top