DWR higher-ups wink at low-level hot-dogging

As it turned out the charge against Tom was dismissed when it was shown in court that the Big Game Proclamation had listed the wrong road as part of the boundary. This error, which was pointed out to several levels of DWR supervisors months before going to court, was ignored by all. The prosecutor was reduced to the absurd argument that the Forest Service had made a mistake in numbering its own road and that the proclamation was correct.

On the issue of the officer's behavior, I started up the administrative chain. Initial contact with the regional director of DWR brought the admission that the officer was known to be "brusque." When I called the state Attorney General's Office and asked how to file a complaint, I was told to hire a lawyer and file a civil suit. Later, I was given the name and address of the chief DWR law enforcement officer. A letter to him resulted in a long justification for the officer's conduct. A complaint to the attorney general brought a four page legal screed, getting many of the facts of the case wrong and justifying the DWR officer's actions. An appeal to the governor for restitution produced a letter of denial from the chief of DWR. A final contact with our state representative, Steve Clark, resulted in a meeting with Sid Groll, chief of law enforcement for the Department of Natural Resources, to discuss our dissatisfaction with DWR.

While I am grateful for Mr. Groll's interest and many of the initiatives he mentioned in the Bauman article, I remain convinced that not much will change until DWR supervisors and leaders are held accountable for the conduct of those under them.

---

Lee Allen is a resident of Provo.