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.