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.