When I first reported this unfortunate incident six days ago I told my readers the outcome would be one thing but it turned out to be something else. I feel like I’ve mislead my readers so I want to set the record straight.
On the morning of February 14 this Jeep was tearing up the wetlands at Farmington Bay WMA. It was fishtailing and mud was flying as if the driver was trying to do as much damage to the refuge as he possibly could. If so his mission was successful.
His actions were illegal for two reasons: for part of the time he was on an OHV trail where full sized, street legal vehicles like this Jeep are prohibited and the rest of the time he was completely off the trail where he was doubly illegal and causing even more damage. My many photos of the incident prove what he did and in some of them his license plate can be read. A DNR Law Officer asked me to send her a photo showing his license plate which I did. She told me on the phone that he “would be cited”.
I’ve reported all of the above in much more detail here if you have the interest and didn’t see my original post.
A few days ago I found out from another source that in the end the Jeep driver was not cited. I was livid so I called the DNR Law Officer I’d previously been in contact with to find out why. I don’t think it’s my place to publicly reveal her name so for the purposes of this post I’ll just call her “Sharon”.
To my surprise Sharon was receptive of my input even when she found out that I was upset about her decision to not cite the driver. She was friendly, professional and not in the least bit defensive. We talked for about 20 minutes as she outlined her rationale for her decision and she then allowed me to present “another perspective.” Following are her reasons for not citing the driver as I remember them:
- The Jeep driver was a 16 year old juvenile (my presumption is that he is a student at nearby Farmington High School and was likely skipping school because the incident occurred on a Friday at mid-morning.)
- He had no previous record with law enforcement.
- When Sharon met with both the Jeep driver and his father the father’s reaction to what his son had done was appropriate.
- The teenaged Jeep driver was given a “stern lecture” and a warning.
- Sharon apologized (3 times actually) for telling me and others that “he would be cited” before she knew the whole story.
When I asked Sharon if I could give her “another perspective” of her decision she encouraged me to do so. I made the following points, among others:
- If lawbreakers are ever going to change their ways actual “consequences” for their actions are at least as important for teenagers as they are for adults.
- I know for a fact that Utah aggressively prosecutes juvenile wildlife poachers so why not do the same for teenagers who wantonly destroy wildlife habitat – after all, habitat destruction is far more detrimental to wildlife than poaching is.
- DNR actively encourages the public to be on the lookout for wildlife and conservation crimes and report them to authorities. It’s incredibly discouraging to those of us who stick our necks out and report them when nothing of consequence is done about it.
I made it very clear to Sharon that I disagree with her decision to not cite the driver but in the end I respect the decision that she made. After such an extensive discussion with her I’m convinced that she made her decision thoughtfully and with the intention at least of obtaining the best outcome possible.
Sharon impressed me and I’m not easily impressed. In my 33 years as a teacher in public high schools I’ve had a number of encounters with law enforcement regarding my students and more than once I’ve seen the tendency for officers to be defensive and less than forthcoming about their decisions, motivations and actions.
Sharon was exactly the opposite. Agree with her decision or not (and I do not) she’s truly a professional and this bird photographer wishes more officers were like her.
Ron
Note: One of my concerns about the decision to not cite the driver was the strong possibility that it had been made after undue political or community “influence”. Farmington is an affluent and close knit community where many influential residents interact regularly with political and religious leaders so I was suspicious that inappropriate pressures might have influenced Sharon’s decision. For example, a father calling someone with “influence” and asking for a favor.
But Sharon assured me that the decision was hers and hers alone and I believe her.
Late addendum: Friend Neil Rossmiller made this insightful comment on my link to this post on Facebook. I think it’s interesting enough to share here.
- “”the father’s reaction to what his son had done was appropriate.” Really? Really?
His son has a fairly new model Jeep with a high lift jack, a winch, and a high rise skid bumper for plowing down vegetation and Dads reaction was appropriate. Dad is more culpable than the 16 year old.
Sharon, if you’re listening, I’m disappointed with your decision.”
If the 16-year old had been driving recklessly on a public road or had driven across someone’s front lawn, what should we expect an officer to do?
It’s no favor to the young man or to the public to give him a free pass because he has an untarnished record for a driver’s license he’s held for less than a year.
It’s some comfort that the father reacted appropriately, but that should not be a decisive consideration. What if the young man were being raised by a single mom who displayed no reaction at all…or was still at work when the officer arrived? Would the officer issue a citation then? How fair is that?
Sharon needs to consider very carefully how this case will affect her decisions in the future and the implication it might have for equal justice.
His community service should have been refilling his ruts with a shovel!
A bad decision by “Sharon “. Now the kid has a reinforced belief that his class entitlement is real. My belief is that he will use his privilege again – and again, and get away with it every time. Because now he knows he can.
I’m afraid you’re right, Richard.
But there’s a flip side from Sharon’s perspective at least. She says she’s made careful notes of this incident and if he re-offends and is caught his previous actions will come back to haunt him.
Not enough for me but at least it’s something I guess…
I know I am late with this reply Ron, I am totally disgusted with the punk kid, his enabling father and Sharon for not nipping this episode in the butt allowing this destruction to continue. Shame on the three of them. I have to say I am not fond of people breaking the law, prime example is the asshole here that let his or her dog run loose and it killed our young resident Great Blue Heron, dogs are supposed to be leashed, I am so sick of people that feel they are above the law!
Thanks for your input, Shirley. And you’re not “late”.
I’m with your friend, Neil……… 😉 It isn’t like it’s something he would carry on his record into adult hood, it would be a “tune up” for his piers etc. 🙁 Doing pretty good today…… 🙂
I’m glad you’re feeling better today, Judy. Doesn’t sound like much fun.
It isn’t but technology is an amazing thing at times……. 🙂
Back in my day, if I had done something like that at 16 yrs. I wouldn’t drive again until I bought my own car. I would like to think the kid was grounded from driving, but won’t hold my breath.
I’d have been “grounded” for that long too, Jean. And that probably wouldn’t have been all…
The kid has been “taught” that his destructive were actions were not serious enough to warrant punishment. That he got away with it. He should have been fined and physically made to restore the damage done, BAD decision!!! At 16 he knows better. As Spec.Ed teacher for over 20 years, am VERY disappointed by the outcome…He should NOT DRIVE UNTIL THE DAMAGE HAS BEEN REPAIRED…BY HIM.
I could NOT agree more with Marty…
“At 16 he knows better.”
That’s right, Patty.
We’re talking about a citation, not serving hard time. The money from the citation is put to good use. No amount of remorse or reaction from your daddy, appropriate or otherwise, should keep you from such a minimal consequence of your intentional bad behavior. This wasn’t something done by accident. He saw the signs and chose to do something that he already knew was wrong, illegal and destructive.
“He saw the signs and chose to do something that he already knew was wrong, illegal and destructive”
That’s right, David. He did it deliberately, no question.
Bad Sharon! Bad Sharon! Both kid AND dad should have been made to do several hours of community service at Farmington, at the very least.
Natural consequences of one’s actions are important learning tools — ESPECIALLY for teenagers. This kid has learned absolutely NOTHING from this incident. I’m willing to bet that while dad’s public reaction may have been “appropriate” (whatever the hell that means), the kid received no consequences at home and, probably worse, the dad has now tacitly approved of, or more likely “atta-boyed” (once they got out of Sharon’s office) his son’s behavior. I’m also willing to bet that this is not (going to be) the only time this kid has skipped school nor the only time the kid has damaged someone else’s property. My guess is that any contrition was more act than sincerity — one doesn’t go from zero to driving a brand new decked out Jeep around a wildlife sanctuary in one fell swoop.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it. In 30 years of teaching, I’ve seen these types of entitled attitudes and behaviors — from children and adults — more and more frequently. It was there back when I started in the 80s, but is much more prevalent now and has risen exponentially in the past 5-10 years. Definitely one of the contributing factors to my decision to retire last year.
I hope Sharon reads today’s comment section and rethinks her reasoning for next time — because there’s going to be a next time, possibly even with this kid.
“I could be wrong, but I doubt it”
And I wouldn’t bet against you, Marty.
Like everyone else I am sad and angry.
Actions should have consequences in my eyes.
Thank you for reporting it. Thank you to Sharon for being open to criticism. I am left to hope (fervently) that his father’s reaction includes at least some punishment. But wonder.
EC, at this late date that’s about all we can hope for with this kid.
Just a general comment since I had no interaction with any of the parties.
Old adage, but fairly accurate: Apples don’t fall far from the tree.
The fact that the 16-year old had no compunction about using his vehicle illegally and irresponsibly indicates he has not been taught to respect law or nature.
We don’t know if the father will punish his son in some fashion or pat him on the back with a “boys will be boys” admonition/excuse.
I understand “Sharon’s” rationale for not citing the young man, but feel a teaching moment was missed. Perhaps “I won’t cite you this time, but you WILL be required to visit me over the next six weekends where you will help me in my daily tasks around the refuge.”
Anyhow, Ron, you did the right thing initially and in the follow-up.
Living with humans in the environment ain’t easy.
Interesting observations, Wally.
Thanks for trying.
What else could I do – ignore it? Not a chance…
Why wasn’t he, at least, been made to do community service! Perhaps actually work on that very same area he destroyed?
Good question, Anne.
You’re one of the good guys, Ron, and I appreciate your reporting on this, but it remains that, regardless of what transpired between father and son, some of the little remaining habitat that has not been made unfit for wildlife to exist in remains desecrated. For whatever reason, this is our species signature effect. It’s not us who need to see justice done, it’s every other species on this planet.
“It’s not us who need to see justice done, it’s every other species on this planet.”
Good point, Lyle.
With all these good comments and viewpoints here, Ron, I wonder if “Susan” would be able to read these comments? Not to “scold” her, instead to show just how much the public wants to see that people are held responsible for their actions. I love the idea of some community service time in going out there and fixing the damage… who knows, maybe as Junior is out in nature he may learn to respect it more?
Ed, “Sharon” may or may not see this post. Personally I hope she does, if for no other reason than to give her the public’s perception of her decision. On the other hand I hope no one bashes her about her decision. I’m convinced she really is trying to do the best job she can and I suspect we don’t know everything she does about the situation.
I had not seen the previous post. Looking over it now I see this is Teal Lake and oh how I have spent some hours there for my own activities over the past few years. That is a fairly new ‘part’ of the WMA as I’m sure you’re aware. Very sickening regardless what area or WMA this happens in.
Yeah, that’s the Teal Unit, Shane. Just south of Goose Egg Island.
Disappointing… is my first thought. That dad thought nothing was done wrong, no lesson learned for this 16 year old.
I do have hope for our youth ❗️This past weekend we met a family on the trail that had the most polite, kind and thoughtful 11 and 16 year olds. I regretted not telling mom and dad what great kids you have. After all, that’s where it ALL starts 😁
Diana, actually I don’t think the father “thought nothing was done wrong”. Sharon at least strongly implied that he was very unhappy with what his son had done.
Ron, do you mind if I share this story on my personal Facebook page? This seriously grinds my gears.
Share away, Shane.
The one thing I don’t know, and that could well have made a difference here, is the nature of the father’s response. Given a choice between a police officer and an irate father, several of my high school friends would have taken the police, every time. It may well be that the officer, who had the opportunity to see the father’s response, decided that handing the boy over to his parents would be sufficient. The fact that she was willing to be responsive to you, and the way she responded, suggests she probably could evaluate the situation pretty well.
“It may well be that the officer, who had the opportunity to see the father’s response, decided that handing the boy over to his parents would be sufficient”
Shoreacres, I believe that was a significant part of the equation that influenced her decision.
I’m truly disheartened by the officer’s decision not to cite this young man. Granted, I’m old now, but I remember growing up in a world where there were consequences for one’s actions, either positive or negative depending on the action. Perhaps I’m delusional in my dotage or when did we (as a society) abandon that idea? This young man is certainly privileged as evidenced by his access to a Jeep. Why does he get away with minimal consequences for such a crime against nature? Oh yeah, nature doesn’t count.
I agree, Laura – consequences matter. When there are no real consequences kids like this one rarely learn. In fact it often encourages their inappropriate behavior.
Good morning Ron. First I commend you for all you have done to report this incident in detail, and then to take the time to follow up on it and discuss it so thoroughly with the officer involved. I can understand law enforcement’s decision to not cite the young man, but I think that today’s youth really need to understand personal responsibility. I think they missed an opportunity here by not at least citing him and then sentencing him to community service. In fact a few weekends out there at Farmington working on removing those tire ruts would have done wonders for him and his friend. Or maybe a week getting up very early in the morning and going out with you on your birding pursuits might have made a man of him and given him a better understanding of nature and how fragile it is.
“maybe a week getting up very early in the morning and going out with you on your birding pursuits might have made a man of him”
That made me smile, Everett – and think about how I’d have handled it. I’m pretty sure that kid would rather work his ass off repairing the damage with shovels, hoes and rakes than spend a few hours with me after what I saw…
Interesting blog article, Ron. I think that if you are old enough to have Daddy buy you a nice jeep, then you are old enough to be cited for willfully breaking the law. Now, will this irresponsible youth feel like he can get away with anything?
I have experienced something similar. In my case, the disrespectful youth knew he could get away anything since a close relative was a high ranking politician.
The moral compass in our society seems to be lost…
Ed, what you describe is exactly what I was afraid had been the case here. But after asking Sharon about it I’m convinced it was not.
I’m sure it happens regularly though, especially considering the example being set by our current resident of the White House.