Journalist Fired for fighting for public access

[GFY]

I don't think anyone is looking to access other peoples property, I think that people are wanting to have access to "THEIR" property as in public property. Property that everyone can use for fishing or waterfowl hunting as per Montana law.

 

[Jason Snyder]

I don't know a single landowner that likes having people essentially on that property that they like to believe they own because they are rich and entitled. And yet all the non-landowners want to have access to property that has been declared to belong to the state and all of its people, no matter how deep their bank account is.

There, I edited it for you to more accurately reflect the truth. The streams do not belong to the surrounding landowners. It is not "essentially theirs". That would be like me denying access to the sidewalk in front of my house because it is "essentially mine".

The waterways belong to the state, up to and including the ordinary high water mark. A country road right of way, where it crosses a stream, is a legal access point and my be used as such. People may not leave the ordinary high water mark unless it is to portage around an obstruction such as a fence. Anything else constitutes trespass.

The Montana Supreme Court is very pro-individual, yet this has stood the test of time despite being repeatedly attacked by people such as Kennedy.

 

[tipsntails7]

There, I edited it for you to more accurately reflect the truth. The streams do not belong to the surrounding landowners. It is not "essentially theirs". That would be like me denying access to the sidewalk in front of my house because it is "essentially mine".

The waterways belong to the state, up to and including the ordinary high water mark. A country road right of way, where it crosses a stream, is a legal access point and my be used as such. People may not leave the ordinary high water mark unless it is to portage around an obstruction such as a fence. Anything else constitutes trespass.

The Montana Supreme Court is very pro-individual, yet this has stood the test of time despite being repeatedly attacked by people such as Kennedy.

 

[troutdreamer]

I recently received an email asking me about renewing my DU sponsorship so I sent them an email saying I thought it was BS that they fired him

Mr. Montour,

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. At no point did Mr. Kennedy ever ask DU to take any actions against Mr. Thomas for the Outside Bozeman article.

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.

Thanks,
Matt


Matt Coffey
Senior Communications Specialist
Ducks Unlimited
Office: (901) 758-3764
Cell: (843) 263-7445
[email protected]

 

[realunlucky]

Basically blowing smoke for circling the wagons for Kennedy. Kennedy has a opposing view of steam access and DU by taking this stance has chosen sides on this issue. Only thing that matters is money. Sad to call that conservation

 

[5MilesBack]

Well it's actually not their property.... By law.. So not much they can do about it

I was speaking in general terms not just at MT law.

But MT is an interesting tradeoff. Public access on all river bottoms, but no access to public land surrounded by private (except by aircraft). Interesting ends of the spectrum within an individual state.

And Colorado is the complete opposite. Landowners own the land under the river, but they can't completely block access to public land.

 

[Carlin59]

And Colorado is the complete opposite. Landowners own the land under the river, but they can't completely block access to public land.

Not to sidetrack too far, but would you mind elaborating on that? I have never heard of landowners having to provide an easement to public land in CO, but I would love to know more if that is the case. I have always used the following http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/lsfo/programs/recreation/hunting/faqs.print.html as my CO land-access guidelines. For example, the CO State Trust land has much different access rules than state land in say, Wyoming. Thanks!

 

[tipsntails7]

I was speaking in general terms not just at MT law.

But MT is an interesting tradeoff. Public access on all river bottoms, but no access to public land surrounded by private (except by aircraft). Interesting ends of the spectrum within an individual state.

And Colorado is the complete opposite. Landowners own the land under the river, but they can't completely block access to public land.

That Colorado law is crazy, having public property extend to the high water mark I thought was a general rule everywhere, apparently not.

 

[TraderMike]

I was speaking in general terms not just at MT law.

But MT is an interesting tradeoff. Public access on all river bottoms, but no access to public land surrounded by private (except by aircraft). Interesting ends of the spectrum within an individual state.

And Colorado is the complete opposite. Landowners own the land under the river, but they can't completely block access to public land.

"but they can't completely block access to private land." Not intending to sidetrack the OP's thread, but are you saying, 5MB, that private land owners in CO have to allow access through their property if said property happens to adjoin public land? such as National Forest?

 

[GFY]

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.

Kennedy has shown his perspective in the countless lawsuits he has been involved with over access to the Ruby river. The article in Outside Bozeman clearly states this.

 

[5MilesBack]

"but they can't completely block access to private land." Not intending to sidetrack the OP's thread, but are you saying, 5MB, that private land owners in CO have to allow access through their property if said property happens to adjoin public land? such as National Forest?

It complicated. You can't just cross over anyone's property to access public land. Let's say that all the land surrounding a piece of NF is private. There has to be an access point to the NF somewhere, but not necessarily on every piece of private surrounding it.

Also, corner-jumping is not legal in a lot of states but is legal in some states. Being able to jump corners would also be considered "access" I believe. In MT I do not believe that is legal, so you can essentially be shut out of a lot of public land.

That Colorado law is crazy, having public property extend to the high water mark I thought was a general rule everywhere, apparently not.

In Colorado, you can float the rivers as long as you don't touch bottom or get out of the water.

I once had a run-in with a landowner from CA here. It was public land on one side of the river and he owned the other. I was standing in the middle of the river casting against his bank. He called the sheriff. The sheriff shows up and tells him there isn't a problem unless he could prove that I crossed the center line. It was funny watching him jumping up and down like a 2yo on the bank of the river.

 

[Dos Perros]

It complicated. You can't just cross over anyone's property to access public land. Let's say that all the land surrounding a piece of NF is private. There has to be an access point to the NF somewhere, but not necessarily on every piece of private surrounding it.

Interesting, I did not know that. Do the Delorme maps, or any maps for that matter, show where the access through the private is? How do you find it?

 

[gwl79902]

Sounds like Oregon is much like CO. There are navigable water ways where one can access up to mean high water mark but other rivers that one would think would be navigable are not legally recognized as navigable. Even worse is over land access. Landowners have no responsiblity to post and almost anything can signify ownership boundries. I have heard the argument that rim rock can signify a boundry. Thank you GPS. You guys in Montana should be very thankful to thoses thattook this on years ago and got fair laws in place.

 

[krueger]

It complicated. You can't just cross over anyone's property to access public land. Let's say that all the land surrounding a piece of NF is private. There has to be an access point to the NF somewhere, but not necessarily on every piece of private surrounding it.

I'm positive that this is not accurate. There are thousands of land-locked acres on NF and BLM in CO with zero legal access other than aircraft.

5MB - do you have any source or reference to prove your claim?

 

[5MilesBack]

5MB - do you have any source or reference to prove your claim?

Not currently. It's been years since I had any experience with it. I actually did a thesis on some stuff that touched on this a little bit, but that was almost 30 years ago. But I do remember contrasting CO law with MT law at the time and seeing that someone could buy all the land around a mountain in MT and essentially close it off to access, whereas in CO that was not legal. I'm not sure entirely, but I also know that smaller parcels of BLM do tend to get land-locked. But to be honest, I've never seen a single piece of NF in Colorado that didn't have access somewhere to get onto it.

 

[SDC]

I got the exact same "copy/paste" response (so well done that the fonts were completely different from the intro of "in regards to your recent message"), though from a different "senior communications specialist", a Mr. Eric Kezler.

I recently received an email asking me about renewing my DU sponsorship so I sent them an email saying I thought it was BS that they fired him

Mr. Montour,

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. At no point did Mr. Kennedy ever ask DU to take any actions against Mr. Thomas for the Outside Bozeman article.

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.

Thanks,
Matt


Matt Coffey
Senior Communications Specialist
Ducks Unlimited
Office: (901) 758-3764
Cell: (843) 263-7445
[email protected]

My original message to DU on this issue:

Mr. Young, Mr. Hall, and Ducks Unlimited;

I'm a new member to Ducks Unlimited. I am just learning to hunt waterfowl, but have been a follower and supporter of the work done by DU in conservation for decades. I am now, and have been, both a volunteer and paid member of conservation groups that have and likely will continue to work with DU on sportsman's issues and on-the-ground conservation.

With all that said, I am seriously reconsidering my affiliation with DU and whether I would recommend any such affiliation to friends, colleagues, or hunting partners.

DU's recent decision to fire Don Thomas over an article he wrote outside of DU press, outside of DU programs, outside of DU agendas, and outside of DU affiliation is extremely troubling. Don has been a great advocate for the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and a staunch supporter of sportsmen and women. His voice is one that has often ruffled feathers but never strayed from the truth. His article, "A Rift Runs Through It", was no different. Don, in his own voice, stated exactly what the facts of that situation are in Montana and what the issues are around the Ruby River. There is no denying the fact that the law on that issue is well settled, and it is settled IN FAVOR of the sporting public. It is also very clear that the issue has nothing at all to do with DU.

Yet, DU saw fit to fire Don over stating the facts of the Ruby River issue. The only person or entity named in the article that could have remotely been "offended" is Mr. Cox, and frankly as a sportsman Mr. Cox's actions offend me - and should offend any of us who believe in the rule of law and the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The only logical conclusion as to Don's termination is just what he has stated elsewhere - that Mr. Cox and his checkbook raised enough grief internally to DU that the DU brass got rid of Don.

If this is the case, then DU has begun selling out the sporting community for their twenty pieces of silver. I hope this is not the case, or if it is that DU comes to their collective senses. There is much good that DU has and can do for the sporting community and the wildlife we pursue. Yes, that takes money to do it, but not at the cost of the ethics and morals of the organization.

I'll never be the donor that Mr. Cox is or could be. My checks won't raise eyebrows or get calls directly from the President's office. However, my checks won't ever be ones that blackmail an organization into selling it's soul, either. I hope DU considers which kind of supporter it truly wants, and that the organization chooses wisely.

Sincerely,

And, my reply back after the "copy/paste" partyline DU response:

You're right, of course, that DU has the right to choose who publishes in their publications. It is quite clear that DU has made the call that Mr. Kennedy's millions are worth more than DU's own positions statements on hunting. I reference, for your benefit, the "DU Position on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and Hunting" and specifically point #7:

Hunting, fishing and trapping shall be democratic. This gives all persons – wealthy and poor, landowner and non-landowner alike – the opportunity to participate. (http://www.ducks.org/about-du/du-position-on-hunting?poe=homeLink)

The Montana law in question, and in fact the provision of the Montana State Constitution as cited by the Montana Supreme Court in question (both of whom Mr. Kennedy via his attorneys in open arguments in court want overturned for his specific benefit), guarantees the right of access to public waters in the state. There is little more democratic than that.

When a person decides for themselves that democratic and legal access to public waters is against their wishes, they stand against the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and the stated positions of a myriad of conservation groups, DU included. When a journalist and noted conservationist calls out said person for their actions, that journalist speaks for hunters, anglers, and conservationists across the board. When an organization determines that the journalist rightly speaking out is in the wrong simply because said person called out is "offended" and their "offense" comes with substantial dollars, that organization has put a price on its very soul.

Again, you are right that DU has the right to choose whom to publish and that right clearly has a price tag. As a hunter, angler, and conservationist, I too have a right - one to determine which organizations I support that also support me, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, the law, and ethics. Unfortunately, Ducks Unlimited has chosen for themselves to not be one of those organizations. Enjoy the twenty pieces of silver from Mr. Kennedy, as my shekels will go elsewhere.

 

[MAT]

Don was one of the few calling out the RMEF for their support of HR1581, which btw we never got an explanation from the RMEF as to how this could have happened in the first place. I was a long time RMEF member but w/o knowing why I am no more. Where's the accountability? My money now goes to BHA as I'm pretty sure they won't have to "revisit" an issue that their member don't know they supported.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs...oundation-retracts-support-anti-roadless-bill

 

[troutdreamer]

Interesting article on this;
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outd...ized-canned-du-columnist-donated-100k-judges/

 

[realunlucky]

Hope to watch this unfold. Stay vigilant or this will be swept under the rug. Buying a seat at the table with dark money (unknown donors ) should have everyone frightened with what is happening to our justice system. These are life long appointments that's years he tap dance to his masters bidding.

 

[DWinVA]

I'm not a duck hunter and don't know much about DU other than it started as a grass roots movement that has been successful. It's obvious to me that big money "guys" are more important to the heads there now than the grass roots guy. Being a stickbow guy from way back and a longtime subscriber to Traditional Bowhunter, and reading most of his books I feel like I do know Don Thomas and I support him and thank him for standing up for public access.

God Bless.