Phil Blooms response to Don's article. It is in the comments and thought it would be something to post here again:

Mr. Mulligan’s column takes the DNR and the NRC to task based on his assumption that they are the architects of this proposal when in fact neither one of them is.
Most rule proposals do come from the DNR or the NRC, but this one did not.
The high-powered rifle proposal originated with petition requests submitted to the NRC from members of the public. The requests came in the form of two letters, one signed by an individual who filed a similar petition in 2012 and a second signed by two individuals. This was not the first time that the NRC and DNR have been asked about high-powered rifles for deer hunting.
NRC policy allows an individual, corporation, association, local unit of government, other state agency, or federal agency to petition for a new rule, an amended rule, re-codified rule, rule repeal or a similar action. In short, it’s one way the NRC incorporates public input into the rule-making process.
DNR staff reviewed these most recent citizen petitions and considered two factors – safety and deer management. First, hunting accidents continue to decline over the long term not only in Indiana but across the country (side note – the majority of accidents involve hunters falling out of tree stands and it is extremely rare when an accident involves a gunshot). Second, Indiana DNR does not formulate its deer management strategy based on a hunter’s equipment choice (shotgun, handgun, bow & arrow, crossbow or muzzleloader) but instead uses season dates, bag limits and license types (most notably the bonus antlerless license).
Consequently, it was decided to move the petition forward in order to engage broader public input on whether or not high-powered rifles would be acceptable for deer hunting in Indiana.
By virtue of the NRC’s preliminary approval of the proposal, that is where it stands – in the public arena where it should be. All citizens are encouraged to have their voices heard on this or any other proposed rule change by either writing to the NRC’s Division of Hearings, using its online comment form (found at www.in.gov/nrc/2377.htm) or attending public hearings once they are scheduled.
Eventually, the NRC’s Division of Hearings will compile all of the public comments and submit a recommendation to the NRC for its consideration.
--Phil Bloom, DNR communications director

Few questions:

1. Who were two letters from?
2. Do they have any connections to the NRC?
3. Can I petition a letter and it be read for a rule change?

It seems odd to me that this has been raised for years, but this time it has such momentum.

It's all a bit insane, Any individual can petition but the DNR decides whether to move the topic forward. Heck, I'm going to petition next year a number of individual changes and then consider what action can be taken if my petition is not moved forward. Frankly, it makes me wonder why there aren't vast numbers of petitions filed throughout the year, but maybe there are. Slippery slope in my opinion and poor judgement on process by the agency. But, the future of these issues in regard to outcome is likely #Twitter. Sportsmen are at risk for losing big time as this stuff moves into social media and this could be the start of that.

That's impossible. Haven't you heard? There are no deer left in Indiana. The DNR killed them all.

My comment has little to do with the deer herd.

Here is how it got started....Via Got INput

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/7373.htm

No comment, just noticed the link in bean post didnt work but know the reason now. h.h

Sorry Delaney, my comment was meant for js2397. I was on the wrong page & multi-tasking.

And Mr. Bloom is continuing to try and put lipstick on a pig. I have been asking him for years to give me names of the people writing and furthering the new rules and he has always done what he tried to do here.

I have the two original petitions as they are public record. The language in the rule proposal is not verbatim in either. Who wrote the actual rule proposal? If it was anyone from the DNR, how are they not the architects? They are directly involved. And why if they have received this before was it written as a rule this time? Hmmm. That sounds like it was the discretion of the DNR. So how is it not their agenda?

Like the rule or don't, but it is time for some transparency and honesty in this process. I will be submitting several questions to the people I now know are driving this for a column. The house of cards is tumbling.

I'm puzzled. Where did Phil Blooms letter come from and why was he responding to Don Mulligan's column?

The process is clear. People have petitioned the DNR. The petition is looked at by the IDNR. An internal review occurs by people within the IDNR and they can decide not to act or to propose a rule. For years the DNR has received request to allow high powered rifles and they said no. They said Indiana would remain a short to medium range weapon state. They said the same thing when the PC were legalized and I testified at Clifty Falls that that was becoming an exaggeration and the camel would have it's nose under the tent. While one can say this was not the IDNR's idea both the IDNR and the NRC have acted to move forward with the rule. Either could have chose not too.

DNA It is in response to Don's column, third response down.

http://www.kpcnews.com/columnists/d...988dd82-022c-51ba-a855-e42db6d0acd2.html