Journalist fired for writing about public access

[Pinecricker]

From today's Spokesman Review.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outd...argeting-sportsman-access-dispute-rich-donor/

 

[Wally Dog]

So let me get this right. DU will not stand up in support of a threat to hunters rights yet they succumb to political pressure from a generous donor. That may be exactly why this 25 year DU sponsor member, past local chairman and district chairman left the ranks and aligned himself with organizations that will indeed stand for hunters, fisherman and trappers rights.
It'll end up ugly for DU and their "Singleness of Purpose" mantra.

 

[MNElkNut]

And why wouldn't DU have a position on access to a waterway?

Is there the potential to hunt ducks on this stream? Someone should go do that and take pictures of them doing it. Then show those to DU and ask why DU has no position on someone taking away waterfowl hunting opportunities.

One point I would like to make is to not lump all conservation organizations together. DU made this decision alone. RMEF, Pheasants Forever, etc are not involved. Please do continue to support these organizations.

 

[katqanna]

Don Thomas was having problems posting to the forum this morning and by the time I got back home and saw his email, I could not reach him by phone to help ascertain what the issue was. He asked that I post his response to DU's canned reply to it's members.

Response to DU Statement

This is written in response to a statement from DU outlining the reasons for my termination, and a note from Matt Coffey to Matt Volz.

DU claims to take “no position on the stream access issue in Montana.” When they terminated me solely as the result of an article in another magazine on a subject at arm’s length from DU’s mission, they most certainly took one.

DU accuses me of “vilifying a member of the DU family.” What I did was report James Cox Kennedy’s record of illegally blocking public access to a stream and engaging in (unsuccessful) frivolous court actions to prevent such access. If that constitutes “vilifying,” it is because of the nature of Mr. Kennedy’s actions and behavior.

DU’s concern for their “family” begs the question of who that family is. Evidently, my own years of membership and service to the organization didn’t meet the definition. And what about the many grassroots members who have expressed support for me and contempt for Kennedy’s behavior?

I did not personally contact Mr. Kennedy to solicit his views because the well-documented legal record clearly establishes them. No one has challenged the accuracy of that reporting.

Mr. Coffey asserts that Mr. Kennedy did not ask DU for repercussions. Perhaps DU can explain how they found out about the article? It is hard to imagine distant DU board members subscribing to Outside Bozeman.

Don Thomas

 

[edonnallthomas]

Once again, I would like to thank you all for your support. It has been a long week (in the middle of hunting season, no less), but knowing that (with a lot of help from friends!) I've been able to help mobilize these concerns in what will hopefully be a positive direction for our outdoor community makes it all worthwhile. One point that I should have addressed earlier... A lot of you have asked what you can do to help, in addition to contacting DU as so many of you have done. I would like to suggest that you contact and support both Outside Bozeman and PLWA. OB Editor Mike England has shown exceptional integrity throughout. PLWA (plwa.org) has been protecting our rights for years, and it's scary to think what Montana would look like today without their efforts. An all-volunteer organization, they need all the help they can get. Don

 

[Hunts]

Made a donation to PLWA yesterday. Great organization.

 

[smarandr]

What a coincidence; my DU membership is up for renewal at the end of the month. I think PLWA will get my money this year instead.

 

[weweber3]

I have received the same reply that others have posted. I have sent this back to Matt Coffey.


Thank you for the reply Matt. I have seen this same response posted on various internet forums.

A couple things strike me as odd.

1. DU has NO position on stream access? Seems to me drawing such a thick line that stops at waterfowl/wetlands is a disservice to your members. Most of which are probably concerned with stream access as well. Shouldn't we as conservation organizations band together to support each other?
2. If any other person that is employed by DU or operates under the DU banner every offends another DU member - will you oust the "offender" as well? Seems like no one will be left if we do that.
3. Is DU in the business of defending James Cox Kennedy? For that matter, other members who are offended?
4. While Don was not an "employee" he apparently had a fantastic record for almost 15 years with DU. He writes one passionate article that is deemed offensive and poof, he is gone. It just doesn't smell right.

Finally, you are right. Don does what Don wants and DU does what DU wants. Also, members do what members want. Don't be surprised when "DU doing what DU wants" leads to members not wanting to be a part of DU in the future.

Thank you for your time,
Bill

I found out about this place from Randy being on Steve Rinella's podcast. Now I am letting Randy get me all fired up listening to his podcast. I have never sent emails about issues like this. You're doing good work Randy - thank you.

 

[jryoung]

I just called DU as it seemed their online contact page email wasn't working. I was directed to

Matt Coffey
(901) 758-3764
[email protected]

So if you'd like to place a call or email to express your opinion here's another point of contact.

 

[MTGunner]

DU...

I was, past tense, a DU member for yrs. I and another sportsman founded a DU chapter back east. We both were sponsor members, commitee members, long time workers for DU. What I finally realized is that DU is for the wealthy sportsman only. They call themselves conservationist but I have learned otherwise. After much soul searching and uncountable years, months, days and hours of toil for DU I called it quits and sent my resignation to them mid membership. I heard nothing other than... "Can you give more"? All DU asks for is MORE! Not my kind of organisation. MTG

 

[katqanna]

In a couple conversations that DU members have had with me the last few days, someone asked a question of bylaws and such, that would prevent a donor from exerting this type of influence, such as Kennedy has exerted. Another contacted DU to ask for their bylaws. So this morning I was curious, looking some things up.

According to DU's 990's, it is a 501(c)(3) non-profit.

In an article at a non-profit risk management website, How to Lose Your 501(c)(3) Tax Exempt Status (Without Really Trying), the first section being Private Benefit/ Inurement.

Private benefit: “A 501(c)(3) organization’s activities should be directed exclusively toward some exempt purpose,” said Richard Crom, Staff Assistant for IRS Exempt Organizations Customer Education and Outreach office. “Its activities should not serve the private interests, or private benefit, of any individual or organization (other than the 501(c)(3) organization) more than insubstantially. The intent of a 501(c) (3) organization is to ensure it serves a public interest, not a private one.”

Inurement: The concept of inurement states that no part of an organization’s net earnings may inure to the benefit of a private shareholder or individual who, because of the person’s relationship to the organization, has an opportunity to control or influence its activities.

“A 501(c)(3) organization is prohibited from allowing its income or assets to benefit insiders (people with a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization),” said Crom. “Insiders are typically board members, officers, directors, and important employees.” He added that prohibited inurement includes the payment of dividends, the payment of unreasonable compensation to insiders, and the transfer of property to insiders for less than fair market value.

If a 501(c)(3) organization engages in inurement or substantial private benefit, the organization risks losing its exemption. Additionally, insiders guilty of inurement may be subject to excise tax.

Inurement, according to a pdf from the IRS website on case histories, states that inurement is not just cash, but also goods and services that serve a private interest, rather than a public one. After reading through this pdf, I am wondering if the firing/termination of Thomas' writing for DU, qualifies as a service rendered for the private benefit of a private donor and "DU volunteer leader"? This firing/termination had nothing to do with DU's mission statement and organization activities serving a public interest, rather it has served James Cox Kennedy's very private interest.

Also, I found the Operating Manual of Ducks Unlimited and By-Laws of Ducks Unlimited, Inc., page 6, Under Conflict of Interest, states, "A Ducks Unlimited Director, Officer, Member of a Board of Directors’ Committee and a State Chairman owes a Duty of Loyalty to Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Such persons shall at all times exercise their powers in the interest of Ducks Unlimited, Inc. and not in their own interest or in the interest of others...

Each Ducks Unlimited Director, Officer, Member of a Board of Directors Committee and State Chairman shall annually acknowledge in writing that they have been advised of this Conflict of Interest Policy and will comply with its provisions."

Just some wonderings on my mind today.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

As a longtime member and volunteer for DU I am extremely disappointed. Needless to say I am going to let my membership expire. If I didn't have access to public lands to duck hunt, I wouldn't be able to. It's that simple.

Real shame that DU will not stand up for sportsman's access to public waters in Montana. One of my favorite times of the year is my week long camping trip in the Gallatin NF, fishing on the Taylor Fork and letting my lab run in "big sky country." I am sure many others have the Ruby River as a special place to fish, that is now screwed up by one extremely selfish person.

This situation makes me wonder what conservation organizations I can trust. I feel I can trust BHA, TU, and TRCP, but who knows with the others.

Finally, I have to thank Mr. Thomas for standing up for access to public lands and waters.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Well said, Northwoods Labs.

 

[katqanna]

iMediaEthics, Media Ethics News & Investigative Reports just ran the story on Don Thomas' termination with DU.

Montana writer axed for article critical of magazine’s board member – published by another outlet

Despite that criticism of Thomas’s article and decision to stop working with him, Outside Bozeman editor Mike England told iMediaEthics by e-mail that neither Ducks Unlimited nor Kennedy has complained about the article to him.

“With only a couple of exceptions, the response has been universally in favor of Don Thomas, his article in Outside Bozeman, and public access to the Ruby River,” he added. England said he gets why Ducks Unlimited made its decision but still sees it as a “betrayal.” England wrote: ...

“So we say, let’s stop all this fighting and find common ground by going duck-hunting together. We’ll park on Seyler Lane, which bisects Kennedy’s property, and hunt our way up and down the Ruby River. Ducks are fast, so everyone should bring plenty of shells.”

 

[katqanna]

There have been numerous articles on this subject now, a couple good ones are
Ducks Unlimited decision puts bottom line ahead of ethics - Hatch Magazine; Ducks Unlimited fires writer over stream access fracas - High Country News.

Something, equally important as the conflict of interest and ethics of Thomas' termination from DU is something Tony Schoonen, one of those rowdy, passionate sportsmen from Butte (I have been told it is something in the water , relayed. He called on Monday afternoon, telling me about a conversation with one of their other rowdy guys, Jackie Corr, also a writer, until he went and died in 2008. After the protest float they organized on the Ruby, to protest Kennedy's blocking access that the previous landowner acknowledged the public as having, Corr began looking into the fact that Kennedy's land had a DU conservation easement on it, writing to DU to complain about what was going on. Tony couldnt remember particulars, but it was enough to point me in the right direction. That was the last year that Kennedy was the president of the conservation easement arm of DU - Wetlands America Trust btw. He had been the president for 15 years.

After researching that evening, seeing another potential whopper conflict of interest (not just because a DU member had a conservation easement with them), I drove over to Virginia City on Tuesday, before this weeks nasty weather got worse, to the Madison County Courthouse, Clerk and Recorders and printed off hundreds of copies of land deeds, easements and the conservation easements. I also researched that evening and yesterday the additional DU easements in other states and connecting members.

I ran into a friend here in town who is a DU member, who immediately asked if there was any news on the DU issue and I shared with him what I had been finding, he was angry, telling me about his networking the newsletter other DU members in a number of other states. One of the articles linked above mentions how upset the average member is. I have seen it on my news feed, which includes forums, so I see the other forums discussions as well, with members calling, writing, complaining, cancelling membership. One guy from PA sent a contribution to PLWA, saying he wasnt sending it to DU, nor renewing.

While not a DU member, I agree with their creation and mission statement and would hope that members would fight back for what they believe in rather than just jump ship, handing privatizers an established, well funded organization on a silver platter, so to speak.

I am getting the web page with all the documentation and the second, interconnected, possible conflict of interest put together now.

While it is necessary to give this word of warning to those who, in praising time past, always forget the opportunities of the present, it is a thousand fold more necessary to remember that these opportunities are, nevertheless, vanishing; and if we are a sensible people, we will make it our business to see that the process of extinction is arrested.

At the present moment the great herds of caribou are being butchered, as in the past the great herds of bison and wapiti have been butchered. Every believer in manliness and therefore, in manly sport, and every lover of nature, every man who appreciates the majesty and beauty of the wilderness and of wildlife, should strike hands with the farsighted men who wish to preserve our material resources, in the effort to keep our forests and our game beasts, game-birds, and game-fish—indeed, all the living creatures of the prairie and woodland and seashore—from wanton destruction.

Above all, we should realize that the effort toward this end is essentially a democratic movement. It is entirely in our power as a nation to preserve large tracts of wilderness, which are valueless for agricultural purposes and unfit for settlement, as playgrounds for the rich and poor alike, and to preserve the game so that it shall continue to exist for the benefit of all lovers of nature, and to give reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the skill of the hunter, whether he is or not a man of means…. Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Flatland Crusoe]

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.

 

[Bambistew]

I've thought about this probably more than I should... I've spoken with a couple DU figureheads about the issue, and they support DUs position. To be fair, I'm not sure they really understand the issue considering public access in Montana.

I sent DU a nice thank you note, professing their support of the landowner, and thumbing their nose at the average Joe who is just looking for a way to legally access hunting areas as mandated by the constitution of Montana. I asked that they update their 7 tenants of the NA Wildlife model to make sure they eliminate the section on wealth equality, equal access, and landownership. I think it was bullets 3 and 7?

The thing that always baffles me, is when a conservation group is under fire, they fall back on their mission statement saying we are a "conservation" organization. While true, they wouldn't have an organization if it wasn't for some poster child animal said members are passionate about killing.

When the chips are down, its always about the land and conservation, not the animal, the hunters, public access, or anything surrounding the animal they use for their poster to raise money. They only advocate for all those when it's convenient to raise money, but rarely the other way around. How many banquets have you been too that didn't offer guided hunts, guns, governor's permits, etc . Could you imagine going to a wildlife banquet and bidding on artwork and donated B&B weekends? Its called a craft fair.

How many non-hunters are members of DU, or any wildlife hunting conservation org for that matter, I would love to know those stats? I can't see how they are separate, you don't have one without the other. Maybe this why I'm so jaded towards all "hunting" related conservation groups. I'm quite hard headed and not that smart, so I may be completely wrong in this view.

The best line I've heard so far from a DU remember in support of firing Don, is "Without wetlands you wouldn't have ducks to hunt." You know what, you wouldn't have members if you didn't have access to kill ducks. (Unless you're a landowner, then in that case, thanks DU for your support.)

The Elk Foundation seems to have figured this out after a long time of trying to separate the two. Or maybe they haven't. But my perception of the RMEF is that they are now advocating for hunting as well as elk/wildlife conservation. My opinion of them has taken a 180 degree turn in the last few years, the the point that I will be renewing my membership for the first time in 15 years.

In this case, we have a wetlands conservation organization. Great, yes they are, probably the best of the best... BUT, one that was founded on the backs of hunters, is made up of hunters, and promotes hunting. I'm just bewildered why they would throw the average hunter under the bus (by supporting privatization of public assets) instead of advocating for more access to them.

After doing a quick bit of research on Mr. Kennedy, I was taken back at the amount of charity he is a part of. Wow, that guy is extremely generous and has started some amazing organizations/charities. Yet with all that generosity, why is he so worried about people having access to a river that runs through his property? One would think such a generous man would want to share it, or at least accept the current laws and interpretations? I can't get my head wrapped around that ideal.

The one question I want answered. Would they have fired Don if the landowner wasn't a member of DU?

 

[katqanna]

Concerning the land in Madison County, Kennedy didnt buy one persons land, he has lots of deeds from numerous people, hence alot of my copying on Tuesday. Some were picked up through differnt years, beginning in 1993, the same year he became the first president of DU's Wetlands America Trust. The previous owner had no problems with public access on the river or allowing hunters.

I dont think Don was terminated just because Kennedy was just any DU member, I think he was terminated because of who he is and the level of DU he is associated with.

 

[katqanna]

I fear the real problem is the bulk of Eastern DU members don't value public access the way that western guys do.

I think this is part of the issue at hand, along with "conservation" easement tax deductions.

After looking at a number of these, there is a pattern developing. I was advised to wait a bit before putting all this on the webpage, but access has come up in some of these eastern cases. I found a legal case involving one that is very similar to issues here, of a public road leading to another property used for public access recreation, cut off by the private landowners who outfit their land and didnt want the public driving through, though they bought the property with the road that way.

BTW, there was a good article that ties in in Outdoor Life's Open County segment -
Shades of Gray: Outdoor Writer Fired by Ducks Unlimited for Access Story

I do not envy DU's position. They had to balance their obligation to a longtime contributor with the risk of alienating an important contributor. Nor do I necessarily find fault with Thomas. He was doing his job. He was reporting on a public-access issue of importance to folks who like to hunt and fish in Montana. After all, as we’ve noted here at Open Country many times, the loss of public access is a major reason for the decline in hunter and angler participation.

Those are powerful competing influences.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Glad to see the mainstream magazines giving some space to the issue.

I've been stewing on this since I got my form letter response from DUs representative. I understand that DU does a lot for waterfowl and habitat, and I want to donate to those things. But the reality is that I'm not wealthy, and I have limited funds to donate. The message that I get from this incident, and from DUs response, is that small donors like me don't matter, and one of the most pressing sportsmen's issues of our time (public access) isn't important. I can't in good conscience continue to donate to an organization standing by that message. My money in the new year will be going elsewhere.