[DNR] Public hearings set for proposed fish, wildlife rule changes

The hearings will be:

• Monday, March 16, 5:30 p.m. at Spring Mill State Park, 3333 S.R. 60 E., Mitchell.
• Tuesday, March 17, 3:30 p.m. at The Garrison Conference Center, Fort Harrison State Park, 5753 Glenn Road, Indianapolis.
• Wednesday, March 25, 5:30 p.m. at the DNR Northeast Regional Office, 1353 Governors Dr., Columbia City.

Public comments can be submitted online at
www.in.gov/nrc/2377.htm
. Locate the “comment on this rule” link in the Rules Docket for the Fish & Wildlife Biennial Rules Amendment Package.

Comments also can be mailed to:

Natural Resources Commission
Indiana Government Center South
100 North Senate Ave., Room N501
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2200

The deadline for submitting public comments is midnight March 25.

http://www.in.gov/activecalendar_dn...ation_id=15624&type=&syndicate=syndicate

You can still make public comments until the deadline of midnight March 25, the date of the last public hearing. The NRC will meet in May to announce its decision to adopt, not adopt, or adopt with modification the various proposed rule changes. [May 19, 2015 10:00 a.m., EDT (9:00 a.m., CDT), Ballroom, Garrison, Fort Harrison State Park, Indianapolis]

See link to updated Timeline (updated 2-18-15). It also shows times and locations of the 3 public hearings. You may also want to read the fine print.

http://www.in.gov/nrc/files/lsa14453_timeline.pdf

Bump....

Brew, I believe your mailbox is apparently full.

Fixed...

And yes next week is start of meetings...

The hearings will be:

• Monday, March 16, 5:30 p.m. at Spring Mill State Park, 3333 S.R. 60 E., Mitchell.
• Tuesday, March 17, 3:30 p.m. at The Garrison Conference Center, Fort Harrison State Park, 5753 Glenn Road, Indianapolis.
• Wednesday, March 25, 5:30 p.m. at the DNR Northeast Regional Office, 1353 Governors Dr., Columbia City.

Public comments can be submitted online at
www.in.gov/nrc/2377.htm
. Locate the “comment on this rule” link in the Rules Docket for the Fish & Wildlife Biennial Rules Amendment Package.

Comments also can be mailed to:

Natural Resources Commission
Indiana Government Center South
100 North Senate Ave., Room N501
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2200

The deadline for submitting public comments is midnight March 25.

http://www.in.gov/activecalendar_dn...ation_id=15624&type=&syndicate=syndicate

Any one besides me going to Mitchell??

I would love to hit ones of these, But I work for a living and cant miss a day....so I guess my written comments is all they will have, those were sent in months back............

The comments I listened to and straight up I did not here all, but it seemed about even for and against maybe a little and I am saying a little more in favor . No one seemed to like the Blue gill limit

I fully support the gill limit. They get hammered on the nest.

I went for a little while but left before most of the comments. What I would say is that there is little hope for hunting, wildlife and conservation. Forget whether someone is for or against the rifles, the reasons and justifications for their positions are simply priceless.

My take from the meeting was about 3/4 of the people support HPR's. Some suggested more time for consideration and tweaking the rule. Magazine or she'll limits as well as maximum caliber limits were voiced.

One guy at Mitchell hliked not being able to use a 22 cal. It kept the M16 rifle types out of the mix lol

yep....and funny thing about it there NOT counting the Yea's & Nay's they're there just to take public input/comments!

I heard there were about 50-60 people at Mitchell and only about 25-30 at Ft. Harrison.

I thought the administrative law judge did a nice job, at least for the short period of time I was there. She already sent me an email and indicated she would follow up with me further.

Do people really understand that the change from urban deer zone to deer reduction zones allow the director with no review process to designate what a zone will be and allow hunters to kill up to 10 deer with a gun in 2-1/2 season that runs till Jan.31 Do you understand a deer reduction zone does not have to be an urban area. At the directors discretion any area in the state could potentially a deer reduction zone. This is crazy and hunters are not even paying attention to it in the rules package. The director answers only to the Governor and politicians.

I would say the DNR is getting ready for a CWD outbreak. h.h.

I would tend to agree with you, HH. Sounds like a contingency plan to me.

Just WHEN do hunters ever pay attention ?? Some are as dumb as a rock .

Ok, I have a response from DNR legal counsel that I am intending to ask him for permission to share with others. If I get that, I will post the responses here. Additionally, while I still have a few questions for the DNR, I believe some of the data provided appears to indicate that the process has not been quite as thorough as it likely should have been. But, we will see. Also, there is a next step, beyond this issue and this position and process is seemingly setting up a precedent that is both interesting and troubling. Anyone out there want to use any other type of weapon to deer hunt then what is approved today or proposed in the new rule? If so, private email me what that weapon is. The question might be an inconsistency in application of process and possible inadequacy of due diligence since there appears to have been a reliance on information from other states but a lack of application of circumstance from one state to another as it relates to how Indiana would then apply the information to this recommendation.

The internal DNR report relative to high powered rifles:
My summary from information provided.

1. The report indicates that IA (Iowa) has a rifle season for deer or big game hunting. I'm not sure that it does, but maybe and maybe only for does in certain parts of the state.
2. Reported data suggests only UT, VT, WY, MO, Fl, NC, SD, AL and NV allows statewide use. Odd that almost none of those states has any resemblance of Indiana in regard to geography. I do believe KY allows statewide use but it appears KY didn't respond to the agency survey.
3. OR, WY, NH, AR, MN, WI, NY, CO, IA and GA has apparently have some sort of restriction of use in certain areas of their state, as we know that Michigan does as well.
4. NH has restrictions apparently related to housing density. GA states public safety as a reason for restriction. MN apparently restricts in at least one metro area. MI refers to population density as a reason for the statewide restriction. Some other states apparently restrict on deer management and herd number concerns. IL states that geographic layout of the state and the number of hunters as a restriction concern.
5. NH apparently has a 5 shot restriction for rifles. SD has a 6 cartridge restriction per firearm, no full auto.
6. No states though indicated that they felt safety was a greater concern with rifles vs shotguns. This would seem to contradict some of the statements made elsewhere about restrictions as to where rifles could be used.

When our DNR suggests that they talked to other states, it would seem that they either only asked certain states or their survey was responded to only by certain states. Some of the irony seems to be that most of the states without restriction or such are located far away from the "farm belt". As such, it makes one question the representation that some of the agency is making in regard to their checking with other states.

Also, nowhere does it appear the agency asked other states if there are further regulations in regard to the amount of hunter orange that is required to be worn during firearms season. This would seem to suggest that the safety issue was not fully addressed or assessed. If it had been, based upon some other states responses, it would seem that the agency would have solicited response from certain municipalities here in Indiana, and they possibly could have but that data was left out of my communication from the agency.

When posed with the question as to the internal process related to due diligence, assessment and decision making, the response is lacking or ignored. It might suggest that there is not a standard process to assess these types of situations and as such an orchestration of outcome is arguably easier, although not necessarily indicated. It might suggest though that there needs to be a more formal assessment, not simply a "other states" allow it response. Additionally, it appears that the agency is suggesting that they should have no voice, influence or even recommendation of any "social issue" which seems to be defined as anything that isn't a threat to the biology of wildlife. All weapon use as such is most likely defined as a "social issue" and it begs the question as to why the agency would take any position and instead relying solely on a definitively defined process meant to enable the NRC with enough information to make a determination per the request of the public. But, that information, if gathered by the agency, should be done via a documented process enabling a strong, multi-faceted due diligence regarding wildlife impact and public safety, not social acceptance. Realistically, this might suggest that law enforcement should have more influence on the recommendation if fish and wildlife determines no biological threat to the species referenced. The supposed reliance on other states input seems a bit disingenuous when often it appears that the agency will not entertain or strongly rely upon how other states management and implement those rules related to hunting and fishing. Consistency appears to be lacking, leaving discomfort with the process and the recommendations.

This now suggests that any weapon requested in the future that does not create a threat to the wildlife should in essence be supported by the agency by recommendation since it is a "social issue" which they appear to suggest is outside of their scope of involvement.

It also begs the question as to whether the NRC requests, reviews and thoroughly assesses the process, documentation and various factors or simply relies on the agency recommendation without influence on what the process is and how it is managed.

They all have a difficult job which I'm glad I don't have. But, I believe these types of situations could be better explained by documented processes, strong due diligence and transparency of process, outcome and recommendation. Not sure that really happened in regard to the rifle issue.

Delaney So do you think it passes or fails to pass?

While still not having as much information as possible, I think the issue should be tabled by the NRC for another year to enable a more thorough due diligence by the agency. Now, if the NRC simply wishes to allow the agency staff to recommend their own personal feelings with what I would consider very limited due diligence, then I guess it should pass. It seems ridiculous and even I must question the approach to the recommendation when 1) the agency appears to wish to distance itself from social issues and 2) pick and choose when they wish to reference what others states do or allow. The seeming inconsistency of message from the agency appears to result then in what possibly could be staff's own personal preference. Is it fair, not in my opinion, but I would not feel like I ethically followed a process with what I know as of this moment. That said, I think it passes with revision. If the agency in the future denies support of a weapon request, i believe it should be strongly appealed and believe there is a lot to base an appeal on. I'm still reading through some things and have asked for a call from the agency as a follow up to my email and their response but haven't gotten one yet.

One other contradiction, since I have nothing better to do this evening. From a previous agency response to another individuals interest in the process, which was provided to me by the agency, the agency states, "Taking into account all the above - prior requests for HPSs, public suggestions through Got INput, and formal requests to the NRC - and with neither DNR Law Enforcement or Fish and Wildlife having reasons to take a position for or against HPRs either on grounds of safety or deer management, the conclusion was that use of HPRs is a social issue". This is somewhat interesting because it would seem to contradict what at least some believe is "support for" coming from some in Fish and Wildlife and it raises the question as to why the agency is even involved in the matter, except for the apparent request from the NRC. Regardless, this quote from the agency itself would seem to fully suggest and indicate that the agency and those in the agency should remain neutral, express no opinion for or against and the NRC should not rely upon or consider any such insinuations from the agency. This would then leave the entire assessment and decision making process to the NRC, influenced purely by public comment from citizens and municipalities without concern of DNR input other then any effect of HPRs on the biology and population of the resource. And, agency staff should probably refrain from making statements that there is no safety issue when clearly other states, assuming again that the agency is relying on other states rules and regulations related to HPRs, have implemented geographic restrictions apparently based upon population density and hunter numbers and expanded hunter orange requirements.

It should also be recognized by everyone that apparently the NRC asked the agency to get involved in this upon the request of two individuals who submitted requests. This itself should incentivize many who wish to have other rules considered to have themselves and a few of their friends submit rule change requests and if those requests are not further considered and evaluated by the NRC and the agency an appeal might be considered. The point here and the question is simply, is the real process simply one whereby members of the NRC and the agency promote various, very limited citizen requests, based upon their own personal wishes. Possibly not, but one should consider that one of the rejected requests was a spring squirrel season, which our neighboring state KY has. Certainly it would seem that if we seek to justify HPRs on the basis of other states, KY being one of those with HPRs, why would we not also consider a spring squirrel season as I believe most reasonable citizens would fully argue that squirrels are not biologically threatened or threatened from a population standpoint. Once again, this is one more amongst a few oddities in how this whole process seems to handled by the agency and even possibly by the NRC. Actually, the bigger question may be who decides and how the decision is made in regard to considering citizen requests. Forget the pro or con, hunters and citizens deserve a more transparent process and a fully understanding of how things work and how decisions are made.

I've heard from several different sources...several different opinions about the outcome of the hpr proposal.

Just yesterday I was told that the hpr proposal is a done deal and they are just going through the motions of the public meetings.

The day before, I was told that it looked like hpr inclusion wasn't happening.....

Like everything over the last few years, I'll be glad when the decision is made...one way or the other.

JJAS, I don't really care one way or the other. But, what I decided to try to understand was whether there appeared to be an unbiased, fair and ethical approach with a defined process. What i believe I have initially found is a somewhat dysfunctional approach that seems fraught with inconsistent messages. As we all know, anyone or any organization can pretty much make a survey say whatever outcome they want it to say. Then, the question comes into play as to whether a single individual or a small group of individuals independently represent and speak for an entire organization. If it is "personal preference" then why not survey all of law enforcement and see what all conservation officers say. Or, maybe that informally happened and it's inconsistent with what the stated position of the agency is. Or, maybe it didn't happen at all. I just find this really, really sad in the apparent manner that this whole thing has been handled. I'm just not sure that there isn't an issue that should be further followed.

And….Does that surprise you?????? Politics, plain ad simple.

Those in power (and those who have the ear of those in power) tend to get what they want......

None of it surprised me. And as I've said, I wouldn't want their job. But, the seeming lack of thorough thought and approach is a discredit to the issue and the process. Knowing some of the folks in the agency and having great respect for their ability, this is very disappointing. Good people but a bad process often yields a disappointing outcome and a baseless decision.

Well, they passed something but I wasn't home to see it. Have to wait until they post up the engrossed bill.

This means we will have some sort of legalized high fence hunting. Sad day for Indiana.

Jack, this is merely a drop of water in a downpour of very sorry actions taken by this legislature. This legislative session shows who bad things can happen, again and again, when one party controls both houses of a legislature and those in power seemingly feel as though they know more then anyone else, including the people they are supposed to represent.

It now appears that the bill slid through second reading and will go to 3rd (and final) reading tomorrow. If it passes then the final obstacle would be the Governor. Appears quite likely to have legalized high fence hunting this year open to all who can meet the requirements.

Jack