Jump to content
REGISTERING FOR MEMBERSHIP ON UPLAND JOURNAL Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Kemo Sabe

Ducks Unlimited fires E. Donnall Thomas

Recommended Posts

henryrski
DU just lost me after 20+yrs of membership and contributions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Connally
I sent them an email from their site. They were adamant about requiring my email address. Interestingly, they never got back in touch with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pumpgun

Even though I don't hunt waterfowl, I have been active in the local chapter of DU for the past two years, even got the Mrs. to help out with fund-raisers, but I just can't abide the firing of Dr. Thomas.  I've enjoyed his thought provoking writing about traditional bowhunting since the 1980's.

Guess I'll have to spend my time and money elsewhere.

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phoneman45

Have not read Mr Thomas' work in DU mag. but have read many of his articles in Traditional Bowhunter. He is indeed a top notch writer and conservationist. I was a member of DU several years ago but most of the articles in their magazine focused on the private duck club scene and too rich for a union laborer like myself. If I were to join a wetlands org. again I would opt for Delta Waterfowl, who to me have always been more geared to tradtional waterfowl gunning, conservation, and heritage, not big money, fancy clubs and the like. My opinion though, I will however, continue to read Mr Thomas regularly in TB.

        eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kemo Sabe

Have not read Mr Thomas' work in DU mag. but have read many of his articles in Traditional Bowhunter. He is indeed a top notch writer and conservationist. I was a member of DU several years ago but most of the articles in their magazine focused on the private duck club scene and too rich for a union laborer like myself. If I were to join a wetlands org. again I would opt for Delta Waterfowl, who to me have always been more geared to tradtional waterfowl gunning, conservation, and heritage, not big money, fancy clubs and the like. My opinion though, I will however, continue to read Mr Thomas regularly in TB.

        eric

All good and well, but keep in mind that those " big money, fancy clubs" do way more for duck habitat than "traditional waterfowl clubs" do. Far more.

I think that some hunters lose sight of the fact that most of the real waterfowl habitat work that really matters is done on private land, with private funding.

And I know a good number of "union laborer" hunter types (that's where my back ground lies) who support the likes of CWA and Delta that belong to clubs that fund their own habitat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mtn Home

Pretty sad they put big money way ahead of the rank and file guys like me , Don and Lori Thomas are great writers, photographers, not to mention very good friends of mine.

Shame on DU, I will never support them again unless they get their priorities straight. Don is as a stand up guy as you will ever meet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kemo Sabe

Pretty sad they put big money way ahead of the rank and file guys like me , Don and Lori Thomas are great writers, photographers, not to mention very good friends of mine.

Shame on DU, I will never support them again unless they get their priorities straight. Don is as a stand up guy as you will ever meet.

He's become my favorite outdoor writer over the last 5 or 6 years. I really enjoy his stuff.

DU did itself some really damage with this one. Especially when considering this was about a fishing issue, not a waterfowl one.

I encourage those who are like myself are done with DU, to put those very same dollars into other organizations like Delta Waterfowl or CWA.

I see that Don likes to shoot a Belgian Browning for ducks. I've always wondered which of the non-toxic loads he uses with them. I'm a huge lover of BB's for both upland and waterfowl hunting, and I've searched his articles trying to find if he ever let onto which load's he used.

Any insight with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hunbum

Montana's stream access law is challenged by these wealthy landowners EVERY legislative session. They simply cannot stand public access to 'their' water.

I took the DU board of directors fishing in Alaska several years ago. Those guys couldn't tell a cormorant from a goose. Just a bunch of lawyers and money guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mtn Home

Kemo I don't remember what load Don uses but I'll be seeing him the first week of December, and I will try and remember to ask.

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KerryLuft

Especially when considering this was about a fishing issue, not a waterfowl one.

Very minor point of clarification: It's more than a fishing issue. It's about allowing the public access to land and water that under state law belongs to the people. Doesn't matter which recreational purpose, though obviously it affects anglers most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KerryLuft

I found this piece by Don Thomas this morning. Hadn't seen it before today.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kemo Sabe
Thanks for posting that, Kerry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shorebird

Kemo Sabe wrote:

All good and well, but keep in mind that those " big money, fancy clubs" do way more for duck habitat than "traditional waterfowl clubs" do. Far more.

Can you elaborate more on this statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kemo Sabe
Kemo Sabe wrote:

All good and well, but keep in mind that those " big money, fancy clubs" do way more for duck habitat than "traditional waterfowl clubs" do. Far more.

Can you elaborate more on this statement?

That statement really does speak for itself.

It's easy for some to  lose sight of the fact that most of the real local waterfowl habitat work that really matters is done on private land, with private funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×