ALC-Game & Fish/State Police
Video
Transcript
1 document
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Chair sees a quorum, the meeting is called to
order. Thank you, committee members. First on today's agenda, as a matter of fact, my co-chair will be here in just a few minutes, so we'll welcome her when she gets here, but let's go ahead and get started with the committee meeting and first on the agenda today is a report an overview from the Arkansas
game and fish director Sean Rock if you would Sean Rock if you would please have a seat at the table and if you would sir if you would just identify identify yourself in your title for the committee we'd appreciate it if you would turn your
Doug Shonerock
Unverified
1:21
mic on sir sir hear me now I got my name is Doug Schoenrock I'm the director of the Arkansas Gaming
Fish Commission okay and director appreciate you being here I know you've got some of your administration here with you and I
appreciate y'all being here today to answer some questions and of course you and I have had we've had a few conversations over the last few weeks especially concerning the st. Francis sunken lands there on the WMA and I just think there's been a lot of misinformation out there concerning with But, you know, the duck season approaching, I think, here in, what, the next four, five, six days? Saturday. It's getting close. So, anyways, I thought this would be a great opportunity to have you here,
and I appreciate it, to be able to clear up some of the information concerning the rules and regulations and how they're going to apply this year during the duck season. It's my understanding, and you correct me if I'm wrong, but during our conversations, You have said that there is no change in the rules or the regulations from last year's as it affects the St. Francis sunken lands or any of our WEAs or waterways as the same rules that were
in effect then are going to be in effect this year.
Speaker 8
2:40
Is that correct? That is correct, sir, other than the fact that we are stepping up
enforcement and will not tolerate any hunter harassment. Okay, one follow-up question before I
let you make your statements regarding this is, I know there's been no change in the rules or the regulations, and you've just confirmed that, and I appreciate it. Over the last several years, I guess those same rules have been in effect. I know you're new at the job, and you may not go back, but I'm sure some of your staff members could.
But has there been any change at all over the last several years in regards to the rules as
they apply to that particular area or anywhere across the state? No,
Speaker 10
3:22
sir. No significant changes. Has there been any change
in the interpretation of those rules? Has it changed from one year to the next as to what maybe the rule actually, the way it was interpreted? Has there been any changes in that area? You know, interpretation of the rules is subject to
Doug Shonerock
Unverified
3:40
the whims of the director, I think, in a lot of cases.
Speaker 8
3:45
There may have been some, sir, but I'm not
aware of any. Okay. Okay. If you would, would you just kind of lay it out for the committee as to exactly, and I know you've
been really involved, and like I said, I know there's been a lot of misinformation out there concerning the blinds or the usage of boats, hunting platforms, and their blinds, especially on the St. Francis sunken lands there at the WMAs. So could you just kind of lay it out exactly what we can expect
and what the hunters can expect from that situation as it exists
Doug Shonerock
Unverified
4:21
now? Yes, sir, I would. In fact, I will read you four points to the letter that I gave direction to for
Speaker 8
4:31
enforcement and legal. Point number one, all regulations will remain in effect as were in effect last year for the 2024-2025 deadline. season number two for the 2025-2026 duck season we will maintain the same position as last year
we will continue to acknowledge the 208 msl contour line as the distinction between private lands and the lands of the state of arkansas as we did during the 2024-2025 duck season this recognition includes the 78 acre accretion as private but does not include the islands that were the subject of the state versus hatchecoon hunting and fishing club 372 arkansas 547 in 2008 number three as was true last year floating blinds on the navigable public waterway of the
st francis river cannot be left unattended and number four no hunter harassment will be tolerated and will be cited sir before I move
forward any questions from committee members at this point representative Richardson you're
recognized for a question I thank you mr.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
5:48
chair appreciate it so you've used that term twice and I'm just kind of
curious what your definition of hunter harassment would be hunter harassment defined
Speaker 8
5:56
in i believe by our enforcement division by impeding another person's success and safety in waterfowling so i let me give
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
6:07
you a more specific if you can um and so from uh from a hunter perspective and i enjoy uh all of our state properties and and try to take advantage as many of those as i can during that season one of the one of the things that often comes up is
conversations or heated discussions between uh various duck hunters over how far away that they're required to be in order to hunt could you help would that be a part of that conversation sir we don't
Speaker 8
6:36
have proximity rules for reciting regulations in
Chair
Unverified
6:40
my opinion it is a safe distance we're fortunate to have very passionate impassioned waterfowlers in the state of arkansas and i welcome comments from all of them because we all share the same passion
when you hunt public land you're going to hear other calling you're going to hear other noise you're going to hear other shots that's unavoidable that could be considered harassment if it's 300 yards away in in my opinion our officers will direct hunter harassment as being unsafe unsafe conditions for humankind sir okay thank you representative woldridge you're recognized for a question thank you mr
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
7:28
chair and thank you director for being here so we're talking about these I mean they're floating blinds right yes sir okay so it's my understanding I think representative Tosh chairman Tosh hit on this originally so blinds were removed removed from wmas and other properties but now they're allowed to be there as long as they're occupied that's not a rule for at
Chair
Unverified
7:49
large wma sure this is a navigable waterway okay and that's why those blinds are allowed to be there because it is a navigable waterway okay and it's been that
way sir since those blinds were burned in 2012 a pontoon boat started showing up that same fall
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
8:07
okay so to clarify this and one more follow-up mr. chair to clarify this what what are the rules surrounding these pontoon boats or floating blinds that are in the navigable waterway now do they
Chair
Unverified
8:17
have to have motors they have to be registered yes sir we are enforcing registration
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
8:22
requirements and occupancy of those floating blinds okay so if someone is on an occupied floating blind so let's just say for argument's sake that someone's being paid or for whatever
reason to stay out there so it's occupied and it's not actually the person hunting would hunter harassment laws allow me to join those people and hunt
Chair
Unverified
8:40
the next morning i think that that's conversation that hunters have to have amongst themselves there's no law that says you you have the right to do so um those those brine excuse me those floating blinds are private property okay um and to answer your other questions sir yes they need to be occupied um unattended as is the
Speaker 26
9:00
regulation for any personal equipment on the wma okay thank you sir
Representative Ward-Law, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
9:14
I think my question goes behind Representative Woolridge. Is the unoccupied definition, because I know in
some of the other refuges, everything has to be out by noon. And I know that gets real hard when you're on navigable water because you can't close it down at noon. But I am a little worried about how the occupation of those takes place and whether somebody, like he said, is paid to stay there for 12 hours
until the next person can show up. And that holds that spot for those people. So on this refuge, and I'm not as familiar with Sunkenlands as I am to others, is there a 4 a.m. rule there? I don't believe so.
Speaker 31
9:53
I'm going to refer back to Joe. Just give me a head nod or Chris. Not in the navigable waterway,
Speaker 32
10:00
sir. You may want to bring Colonel to the table. I'm sorry. Joe, come on up. Mr. Chair, if
Speaker 35
10:05
that's okay with you. that's fine may carl if you
would just come on up have a seat and identify yourself for the committee and you'll be recognized to answer the question lieutenant colonel joe Williams
arkansas game and fish carl do you hear
Speaker 37
10:23
representative ward log's question yes sir okay you recognize the answer representative ward log would be similar
Speaker 38
10:27
to felsenthal's that you're leaving the hunting area and you're going into the navable stream and so we're not affecting the navable stream
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
10:34
portion so like washita river would be off
limits so yes so they could have that line on the river and someone could occupy it all day all night and person's okay so you said when you sat down mr rector that you wasn't going mr chair is this okay
yes you're recognized you were going to instruct enforcement to strongly discourage hunter harassment in other said refuge around the state we're seeing a lot of blocking and blocking is a term that i'll describe the the definition to so we understand each other blockings where multiple hunters show up to hunt together and they spread out across the refuge to cause themselves to have a larger buffer zone between the next hunter and them how were your wardens better regulate or stop
members of the public from blocking because it's a huge problem in certain refuges especially smaller ones i don't believe
Speaker 32
11:31
that it's a problem at this point in time on the area we're speaking of i'm not familiar with the area well i've got you here today so we're talking about all of them i believe it's 100 about safety i'm not sure
Chair
Unverified
11:47
if blocking is safe or not but if they're hunting in a party i don't believe there's a spatial agreement between individuals hunting in a party
but i do believe that if that's a tactic that's being used i'm not familiar with that tactic but it should be
addressed i agree yes sir thank you mr chair thank you director let me make sure i understand the position for the game and fish on holding those blinds someone that you know goes out there and they hold those blinds and they i think somebody alluded to this a while ago that to maybe just have someone spend the night there or whatever the case,
do we really think that that gives them to the public an unfair advantage on public land for them to be able to do that, to be able to every single day to be able to take that and be able to secure that spot where, say, a dad and his son or daughter or whatever wanted to go there that morning in duck hunt? Would that not place them at an unfair advantage to allow that? I believe
Speaker 28
12:49
that's accurate, sir. I'm simply replicating what's been done in past years. Okay,
so how is enforcement going to take place in regards to that?
Speaker 37
12:59
Defer to Joe, please. Representative Tosh, as simple along the lines of this is that we're kind of in a conflict of we're in a navigable river. And so if these people are telling us that they're navigating that river by being on their boat and being occupying it, there's not much that we've got as far as enforcement. You know, there's nothing we have that restricts them from navigating the river. If the river was a refuge and it wasn't deemed navigable, then by all means we could block it off, we could shut it off and consider it that. But, again, it's no different than having a highway that goes through a national forest.
Speaker 51
13:33
You know, we can't stop the flow of traffic, per
se. And obviously, being from up in that area, Colonel, you understand that, and being the chair of this committee, I've had several people reach out to me with concerns about already the number of blinds that are being put up there along the river, along private property, close to private property and public, and those blinds are already going up.
Is that allowable according to the law with the Game and Fish? According to the law, they need to
Speaker 37
14:08
be occupied as if they're navigating that river. If they're not occupied, then they need to be removed. And so we've had some conversations locally with the prosecutor's office about, do the prosecutor feel like we have the authority to hook onto that boat and drag it off? And he heard some precaution into that. Reference to civil liability, deeming that a judge could or could not find that person guilty, even though it is a violation of the law. And so what we have prepared is some notices, actually, to place on those blinds.
Our officers were out there this morning. We've determined that there's about 10 to 12 blinds. We anticipate probably tomorrow that we'll have about six that are not currently manned, and we'll be placing those notices on those. What these notices entail is simply along the lines that we're going to consider that line to be closed. So a person is not going to be able to hunt that, and they need to contact us in order for it to be removed
away from the area. Okay, and I missed just a little bit of that. Are you saying that when your enforcement agents, when they went out there this morning, there was how many?
Speaker 54
15:14
We guess that there's about 10 to 12 blinds currently out there right now. I know several were occupied,
Speaker 37
15:20
but I think that then some communications that people are moving currently today, moving some of these blinds still. We've had these conversations all through last week. I know that several blinds were moving Friday, Saturday. I know I got an email yesterday referencing several blinds that had not been moved. our enforcement officers were out there this morning making a patrol of the river and we've identified 10 to 12 and from my understanding we anticipate about six of those not being manned in
the morning when we start placing these notices on these unmanned blinds.
Okay and when you say placing notices I understand that so right now you're just making them aware that they needed to be
be removed there's no enforcement action taken other than notification at this point. There had been a
Speaker 37
15:59
lot of miscommunication about the blinds and the placement of blinds and so again we're trying to give everybody notice that the blinds cannot be unmanned. If you're navigating the river, you navigate the river, but for the purpose of setting up a blind to hunt out of it and not occupying it,
you will be sighted. Okay, and I guess at some point your enforcement officers will
go back and revisit this area, and if those blinds are still there, then you're going
to take necessary enforcement action, or what's your plan for that? So our plans are when these notices are placed tomorrow is
Speaker 49
16:27
the intention to start placing these notices on any unmanned blind
Speaker 37
16:31
at that point that blind is going to be considered a rest area for say so you're not going to be allowed to hunt out of it so if we can't get a hold of somebody wednesday 30 friday and they show up saturday morning their blind is off limits we have a number on here for them to contact the gaming fish an
Speaker 57
16:49
enforcement officer will be in contact to cite them for
such violation okay thank you for that answer, Colonel. I appreciate that answer, too. So, Senator Sullivan, you're recognized for a question.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
17:04
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate you let me ask a question, not on the committee. Just want to make sure I understand that what is determined navigable and non-navigable? If you're saying if people are navigating the river, then they can set up a blind. If they're not navigating the
Speaker 49
17:22
river they can't so what is the determination there from an enforcement perspective navigability is a very gray
Speaker 37
17:30
area that's why i'm gonna know that on felsenthal that a guy can't be out there before 4 a.m duck hunting but there are no regulations that prohibits anybody from being on the refuge for the purposes of fishing so it creates quite the uh it creates quite the hurdle for an enforcement officer to prove this and so
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
17:48
that's what i'm asking how do you if you're going to enforce it because I think enforcement is the key to this and I understand it's hard so how will
you interpret that if you're fishing you're okay if you're hunting you're not how do you interpret whether they're navigating the river or not I would simply say that's
Speaker 54
18:04
a case-by-case determination talking with that person that may be on that vessel obviously one that is not occupied
Speaker 37
18:10
is there for the purposes of duck hunting and so that's pretty simple but again if a person tells us that he's out there to spend the night and he plans on navigating it's a significant hurdle so it's not an easy answer i don't have a simple well
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
18:23
i would think if you have officers out there
enforcing it that there would be some training going on from the agency this is how you determine if they're compliant or not compliant are you training your officers along those lines not reference to this
Speaker 66
18:38
situation but certainly we'll be glad to do that that i
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
18:43
guess that assume that means you're going to start that very soon yes sir okay um i guess the follow-up question mr chair if you're okay you'll recognize thank you um the the enforcement is seems like the key to this
so uh you know people are there for example your notice is being put on there did i hear you right that if they put the notice on there how long will it be before you actually remove the blind What the prosecutor has simply said is
Speaker 37
19:14
allow them to contact us and allow them the opportunity to remove it themselves. Now, again, once his notice is placed, they can't have none of it. But his concern is in reference to civil liability of damaging some type of equipment. Some of these blinds are not a 14-foot giant boat with a 25 horse.
Some of these things are placed on pontoons that could be $90,000. And we don't have a tow company, per se, that can come and get us. There's a little bit of water issue right now. The only thing that our
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
19:46
enforcement officers have is basically a 35-horsepower mud motor to get up and down that river. Thank you for that answer. Again, I'm just concerned, and we hear this in multiple venues that we ask a prosecutor to give their advice.
Your agency is in charge of doing what you can do. And if your rules say we're going to ticket someone or fine them or whatever your rule says, then it's up to the prosecutor to determine whether they prosecute or not. And I'm sometimes concerned that we hold up following through with our enforcement rules because the prosecutor says I'm not going to prosecute it. That's their job. Your job, if they do a ticket and they're not following the law, your job is to give them the ticket, regardless of what the prosecutor says.
Would you agree with that? Yes, sir. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Follow up on Senator's question right quick. I hear the terminology navigating, navigating. how is how does that uh if someone has got it tied up how's that navigating the river if that if if it's tied up i mean they're not navigating it's it's there looks like uh permanent so at the point if
Speaker 37
21:05
they start mooring to things and and attaching to property that's a much different
issue we have some leverage there on that deal but you know if a guy is just again floating the river or passing through for say or not hooked off to anything then it presents challenges but Yes, mooring to trees, mooring to land,
Speaker 74
21:23
very easy to prove that that person is not navigating. Okay,
so that falls under a separate statute. Is that what you're telling me, Colonel, that that gives you another leverage of enforcement if they're tied up and they're not navigating? Is that an entirely different issue, or are we on the same issue here?
Speaker 37
21:40
I think we're on the same issues related to this. You know, again, I would point out that if you use somebody along the lines of stopping and spending overnight on the buffalo river you know there's no regulations that prohibit them from stopping and tying up all night but again for the purposes of what we're talking about in relation to how do we determine what this person is doing i'd go back to they're in a blind that's set up to obviously hunt out of uh for duck hunting purposes do they have gear inside of that for duck hunting purposes and so again building that case and making those layers to
determine what that person's intentions are. Okay thank you. Co-chairs here and I'm glad she's here with me. Thank you. So you're
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
22:30
recognized for a question. Thank you. Thank you for a report. So and I could have missed this but how many miles are we talking about or what's the distance here of the of the river between the Hatchie Coon Private Hunting Club and the St. Francis Sunken Lands WMA?
Speaker 8
22:46
Let me take that. The property in question, the separation and distance between the physical boundaries of the wildlife management area across the navigable waterway to the private land ranges from 75 to 300 yards. the length of that property probably is a span i'm not that familiar i'm just going to estimate it and i was there a couple weeks ago probably probably talking about a mile half mile three
quarters of a mile to a mile of stretch of
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
23:23
that navigable navigable river pretty small area okay so it's pretty small area but
Speaker 8
23:30
because it's this definition you're seeing a lot of It seems to be that there's an extremely rich heritage of waterfouling in that area, both public and private. The mandate from the Corps of Engineers, based on the Oak Donnick Dam, is to maintain a 210 MSL level, which we do.
we expand that during gunning season to expand water into the St. Francis sunken lands which is a large waterfowl management area when that occurs the public land hunters tend to diffuse into area that now has water on it but we also have to be careful that you don't overfloat it because then it starts encroaching on private property as well and so it it is always controversial early and it is as picturesque as a waterfiling area as you can imagine it's huge
cypress trees uh slow moving water but it's too deep to stand and wade in most cases or the or the bottoms too so that's why there have been pontoon blinds put
Chair
Unverified
24:36
in there ever since the blinds were burned in 2012.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
24:40
Okay and so but you can anchor I mean you can drop an anchor so to speak to and you're still considered navigating the river correct I mean if I'm fishing on a pontoon boat and I drop an anchor I mean yeah yes
Speaker 92
24:57
ma'am navigating that is correct so I just think
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
25:01
we have to be really conscientious of enforcing it but also understand that this is a very like you said, gray area. So it's going to be dicey for your law enforcement officers, I think, and how you define that. You know, if you tie up to a rock on the Greer's Ferry Lake,
I'm still navigating that lake. So I just think this is going to be super tricky, but I appreciate the attention and the understanding of where we are and what's happening. I think it's really critically important to talk about this so
that the public understands very clearly what is happening, why it's happening, and what is permissible and what is not permissible. My last question is, even if the, my understanding is
whether, if you have a motor, are your
law enforcement officers uh does the motor have to work or not because you can be in a canoe and still navigate without a motor and with paddles so great question senator simply along the lines is if
Speaker 37
26:22
an officer sees someone motoring that that vessel is required regardless of horsepower restrictions to have registration okay but again if you're floating down the white river if you're floating down the buffalo river and you don't have your motor active and they're just floating then there's no requirement for that to be to be registered there's an assumption that you
may be using it but the burden of proof would be on the officer to prove that you are
Speaker 8
26:47
in fact utilizing that motor and there are signages throughout the area of a paddle trail a nag of a water paddle trail there are signs posted on trees for that so at certain times of year there are a lot of paddlers in that area okay thank
you thank you chair and i appreciate your comments because that's why we're having
this meeting today there's so much misinformation and it's good to get it out in in the open so everybody
understands exactly uh what to expect is uh here when uh even before duck season starts we need to know but director and colonel many of these structures that uh are on these waterways on public waters they're unregistered boats so how's your enforcement how's that being handled by
your agency representative simply along the lines of what
Speaker 37
27:38
senator ervin just said if an officer witnesses that person motoring or using that if the boat does not have registration on it or they
can't prove that they just purchased it within the last 30 days then that person would be issued a warning or a citation for operating a vessel without boat registration and i
know this may be a tough question would you have any idea uh how many citations have been issued especially in that area in the last uh 30 days no sir i could not give you any information i'm sorry thought that'd
Speaker 54
28:12
be a tough question i should have i should have come prepared for that great question again i'm just curious okay
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
28:18
representative warders you're recognized for a question thank you mr chair and thank you director and colonel again for being here so i kind of wanted to follow up on senator sullivan's question and senator ervin's question about navigable waterways and a boat a boat being navigable so if some of these structures are being moored or tied up for 60 days are they navigating this waterway sir i would say that no
Speaker 37
28:46
they're not navigating the water a question that comes into this is if you take something a body of water such as lake washita
Utah, Lake Hamilton, Lake Grisbury, they're pulling into some of these bays, and they're mooring these things off. And so, you know, again, what's the definition of navigability when it comes to that type of procedure? For the purpose of what we're talking about today, I feel like the intentions of somebody pulling up there with something that looks like a duck line is simply for the purposes of trying to duck hunt out of it. So I guess I didn't do a good job of asking my question.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
29:25
What would a consequence be of that? So if you have an officer that responds to one of these structures and then they're back two weeks later and it's moored to the same tree, same issue, I mean, have they violated the law or not? I think we need to have an officer following up with them to determine
Speaker 37
29:38
what their intentions are. You know, again, if somebody's moored to a place and their motor's broke down and they don't have a way to get it out of there, obviously I wouldn't want a warden writing a ticket for that. But, again, if your intention is to hold a spot
Speaker 57
29:51
and they have nobody in it, then I would say let's issue a citation.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
29:55
Okay. One more follow-up. On the paper that we were handed, it talks about a Class 1 felony or a Class 1 violation. What is a Class 1 violation and how severe is that in terms of a punishment? For
Speaker 38
30:08
Arkansas Game and Fish purposes, each county, that would be a $100 fine. Each county has its
Speaker 37
30:14
own court cost. So I don't know what point set is, but maybe it's $120, which is a fairly consistent number. 220 fine altogether six point violation against your hunting fishing privileges does not put you out of anything but obviously starts putting you on the path to a suspension if you accumulate 18
points in a five-year period okay thank you
sir thank you mr chair
Speaker 106
30:42
senator johnson you're recognized for a question just a matter of jurisdiction whenever we're talking about navigable waterways Does the state have jurisdiction on the regular high water marks and below the high water marks? Does the feds have jurisdiction? Where does your jurisdiction lie and the feds take over?
And will you have people, federal officers, with you whenever you go to this? Because if it's below the water mark, I think you'll have to have
Speaker 37
31:16
federal. So this will get kind of complicated in explaining, but I'll try to do the best that I can, sir. Along the lines of this is that all the regulations that we enforce on navigable waterways fall under Title 27 state laws. And so we have laws that reciprocate to state waterways, and then we have laws that reciprocate to federal waterways.
So take Grizzberry Lake, for example, that's considered a federal waterway. we have statutory authority as law enforcement to go out there and operate under Title 27. When we start talking about deeming something navigable, I think that that comes in two ways in Arkansas, mostly through a court case, but the Corps of Engineers is, in my opinion, probably the primary federal agency that can determine federal navigability. The Coast Guard, the courts, and things along those lines can get involved as well,
but again, as far as us being able to go out, Anything that we would write pertaining to boating law would be under Title 27. A lot of the regulations that we're talking about today are going to be considered WMA regulations connected to St. Francis Sunkin' Lands under
Speaker 106
32:24
AGFC authority. I was just trying to, while the discussion was happening, trying to go through it
Speaker 107
32:29
and everything below those regular high watermarks is federal jurisdiction from what I can find. Is that correct?
Speaker 37
32:36
Again, I think that it gets a little bit blurred with the fact that Title 27 allows us to go on these navigable waterways and enforce boating laws. We're one of the very few state agencies that I say where the Game and Fish operates. A lot of times the state police has a water patrol, and they go out and perform safety functions. Again, we're trying to get people that are operating recklessly, people that are operating under the influence of alcohol, may have drugs. Here at the Game and Fish does that. And, again, we're doing that under the statutory authority of Title 27 that the legislator has provided us.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
33:12
Thank you. Senator Sullivan, you're recognized for a question. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. My question would be to the chair. Could you ask the gentleman, and, you know, there's been a lot of ambiguity, things that are hard to determine, and there was a statement made by the gentleman that they would start training. Could they send you a copy of the committee, a copy of the training points they're going to make
Speaker 65
33:43
before the beginning of hunting season Saturday? Maybe they could send those to you. It seems like it's
a communication thing. Would y'all be able to get that information to us in a timely
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
33:59
manner? Yes, sir. Okay, if you would. And also mr. Chair what the definition of what navigate navigable waters and how that will be enforced I mean, we can't expect the local officers to enforce the law until there are some guidance given from the agency
Speaker 62
34:15
And maybe also the lastly the number of citations in the last 30 days so Director Carlos your
jaw understand that request and is that one you can apply with point of clarification?
Speaker 100
34:28
I'm assuming we're talking specifically for that body of water not Correctations. Yes, correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay, and if you
would get that information to Zane and he'll make sure that gets Distributed out to each committee member. So thank you for that senator. Do you have a follow-up?
Okay Representative Dalby, you're recognized for
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
34:56
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm over here far to your right. In regard to the Class 1 violation, I heard your testimony was $100 fine plus court costs. But has that changed from what a Class 1 that has typically been, which is $100 to $1,000 fine and 0 to 30 days in jail?
Isn't that really what the fine is for a Class 1 violation? Yes, ma'am,
Speaker 37
35:21
and I apologize. I always, it's an enforcement officer out in the field perspective that I use there. I'm sorry I didn't give the range of that, but that would be correct, that a minimum fine would be $100. All of our officers in 99% of the cases are instructed to write a minimum fine outside of some
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
35:42
adjutant circumstance. But follow up, that goes before the district court, correct? And so really, whether your officer writes a $100 fine, the court could say a $1,000 fine and sentence them to 30 days in jail.
So we're not talking about just a little slap on the wrist, correct, for a class
one? Correct. Okay, thank you. Seeing no further questions from committee members, appreciate y'all being here. Let
me close with this one final question. I'm just curious, what is your big picture as far as your thoughts on conservation and safety, not only for the St. Francis sunken lands, but also for all of our WMAs around the state?
Just kind of give me your big picture on what you plan to do as far as the
Speaker 48
36:36
safety and conservation of those areas. Yes, sir. Number one, for
Speaker 8
36:41
all WMAs, safety is our top concern. Number two is providing opportunity to public and private in a safe manner and making sure
Speaker 9
36:50
that the habitat is there for them to have some degree of
success. Okay, thank you, Director, and I appreciate you all being here today.
Thank you for hopefully clearing up some of the misinformation that's been out there,
and I'm sure you all are going to address how that misinformation got out there, but this is kind of what it's led to. So I thank you for your attention to this matter. And, yes, my co-chair has, if you have a
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
37:20
comment, just made me reckon it. Thank you. I think it's really, really also very, very important that hunters do not take these matters into their own hands. That, I mean, you can get into a serious situation.
And I think back to what Representative Wardlaw was talking about with the blocking and things like that. I mean, we have to communicate about these things very clearly so that we do preserve the ability for the public to hunt these important lands that taxpayers pay a lot of money to cultivate. And so I get real concerned whenever we start talking about and I see videos, you know, that go viral of, you know, people running over each other in boats and rushing to get out to their spots.
so i think you know at some point i mean everybody is a passionate duck hunter i am too but we've we've got to make sure that the message is very clear not to take these matters into your own hands and try to destroy something that's not yours whether it's supposed to be there or not supposed to be there i just i want to make sure
we say that clearly for the public thank you co-chair Also, following up on that, and we'll close with this, what are your enforcement plans?
I know you said you were going to beef up enforcement for that area. You know it's kind of a hot-button topic up there in that area right now, and you've said you're going to increase your enforcement. So kind of lay that out. I mean, are you going to send more officers in, or what are your plans as far as helping control that situation?
Speaker 37
39:09
Representative Tosh, the intentions are tomorrow morning to, again, identify what blinds are left at this moment that are unattended. Get those things labeled. Get them put out there.
Our officers obviously want to have a larger presence going into the weekend. Again, increasing officers' presence for Friday and Saturday morning specifically related to these things. I think once these blinds are labeled, I think the phone calls will pick up. I think there will be some movement related to that. But, again, the last thing that we want is somebody having a fight out there Saturday morning. thank both of you thank you for
your answers today thank you for your attention to this matter and appreciate you being here excuse
committee members next on today's agenda is the we have the Arkansas State Department of Parks and Heritage and Tourism here and the Attorney General's office to discuss our state parks and the question I think we're looking for today I hope we get an answer to is whether or not firearms can be carried on our state park so if you would gentlemen and ladies just have a seat at the table and
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
40:35
members of the committee as they are coming to the table i just need to be able to read this statement the washington county circuit court issued a gag order on august 28 2025 prohibiting certain law enforcement agencies including arkansas department of parks heritage and tourism from making any public statements regarding anything that touches on the evidence concerning the incident at devil's den state park thank you thank you
co-chair and you know and we understand that we know you can't really discuss any of that that's what we told colonel
hager when he was here with the state police going over that situation we know we're not privy to some of those that information parts of that investigation and this committee understands we appreciate that but today uh if you would just go ahead and identify yourself for the committee and then we'll
Speaker 123
41:28
get started marty ryle i'm the director of legislative affairs for the department of
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
41:35
Parks Heritage and Tourism Mike Wilson assistant director of Arkansas State Parks
Speaker 125
41:40
Kelly Summerside deputy attorney general for the opinions and
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
41:43
FOIA division at the AG's office Justin Hughes assistant attorney general at the opinions and FOIA division
Speaker 128
41:53
of the Attorney General's office Justin Brasher senior assistant AG with the intergovernmental affairs division of the AG's
office okay thank you for being here today we appreciate you taking the time to appear before this
committee and the question at hand is simply this you know we heard from Colonel Hager some time ago in regards to the situation and we're not going to bring that up today but what what the inquiries have been and
what the answers we're looking for is whether or not in our state parks an individual can carry a firearm is there signage is it prohibited is it allowed I think we need to have a discussion about that and that's what we're fixing to have so if you would ever who wants to go from That question and start answering We're ready. Oh,
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
42:40
yes, sir. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this group currently As it relates to carrying a firearm or handgun on Arkansas State Parks
We follow the the current Arkansas statute with concealed and also enhanced carry we follow that direction, sir okay so is the answer
that my question is that a yes it is
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
43:02
a yes with an exception to federal property or leases on Corps of Engineer properties which doesn't allow the carry of a firearm without a permit for the from the Corps of Engineers yes
there's a difference in state and in federal so but on our state property yes there's no signage up or anything that says farms prohibited or is
Speaker 134
43:24
only as it relates to enhanced carried entering certain buildings on state property as identified in the law sir
okay anyone else at table yeah
Speaker 128
43:36
mr. Hughes can clarify that thank you our
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
43:39
office issued an opinion on Friday opinion number 20 25 0 3 1 that opinion deals with municipal parks but there is significant overlap with state parks and so the answer to that to the question whether you can carry a firearm in state parks is yes.
We agree with state parks that absent carrying a firearm to federal land like U.S. Corp. of Engineers land, you are allowed to carry. Can you
explain the difference? I'm sorry. Let me
Speaker 53
44:12
make sure I understand. You're saying, oh, federal land? Say that again. No, no,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
44:17
no. Excuse me. Let me clarify. For state parks, you are allowed to carry either openly or concealed within the park.
And as state parks has indicated, there is a prohibition on carrying it within state buildings. You cannot do that with a normal concealed carry license, but you can with an
enhanced license. Okay. And on federal parks, make sure we all are clear on this. You said something about federal parks. So it's prohibited under federal
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
44:51
law. that correct? So Arkansas law prohibits carrying of a firearm anywhere where it is prohibited by federal law. So for example with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers property it would not be able
to carry on that property even if it is within
Speaker 140
45:07
a state park. Just to clarify we have five state parks that are uh on u.s core of engineering lands
Marty Ryall
Unverified
45:15
they are bull shoals lake washita de gray lake resort state park lake dardanelle state park and millwood state park all those fall under the u.s core lands all the other state parks out there uh the 47 other state parks are state lands
okay just uh to help help me understand so the 47 state parks it's not prohibited but are you saying under the five that's under the core there's a a different set of rules for that because it's federal is that correct yes sir representative gonzalez
you're recognized for a question thank you mr chair mr director you mentioned that you you follow
Chair
Unverified
46:00
the the concealed carry law when allowing to carry in a state park or constitutional carry state so what about someone
who is carrying without that permit are they still allowed in those state parks understand the buildings and federal and all that's different i'm talking about the others
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
46:21
other state parks yes yes sir we we are allowing that carry sir with the exception of those federal as long as the
intent and there's no crime associated
with it thank you mr. chair thank y'all for being here today uh the attorney general staff a minute ago
you mentioned municipal with except municipal could you define what you were stating there Thank you
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
46:58
for that question. I was stating that the opinion that our office issued on Friday dealt with municipal parks. In that opinion, it states that you can also carry in those parks, specifically you can open carry in those parks. You can conceal carry both with a regular license and an enhanced license with the exception
of athletic events. and i'm happy to get into that exception but in terms of municipal parks
that's what i was referring to okay and just just for clarity mr chair for public uh consumption uh i have not read that that you put out friday uh i checked with our staff today and the agenda for the meeting which it does agenda changes the the meeting notice was put out november 6th for this meeting
today the agenda was put out uh he said roughly midday uh thursday the 13th and if for our citizens who like to participate sometimes in these discussions if you ever go on if if you've already left home thursday and the agenda's posted and you don't know about it to thursday night you can't go into your employer and friday morning say i'm going to take off monday i
need to be down little rock this is what concerns me sometimes to have
citizens input if we could do a little
better job at least if the agenda is going to change put out something that the public knows what we're going to be discussing and sometimes they can change their their daily routine or maybe get off so i appreciate your answers and i'll be glad to listen thank you the chairs for your uh recognizing me senator johnson mark johnson
you recognize for a question thank you mr chairman uh this in the immortal words
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
48:58
of one of our late governors opens up a whole
box of pandoras i'm just not sure how to sort all this out but first let me if i could go to our friends with the AG's office about the recent opinion which I haven't had a chance to read but my understanding of what you said is that any municipal restriction on carrying in a park has been struck down or the opinion of the AG is that it's it's not applicable based on
both state statutes and the the constitutional carry requirement am I
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
49:43
hearing that correctly Essentially, Senator, what the opinion states is that in 2021, as you're probably well aware, there were several amendments to ACA 573-122 that removed municipal parks from their definition of facility.
After those were removed, open carry is allowed in municipal parks. However, there's still a prohibition in 573.306 regarding those with a concealed carry license from having a concealed carry weapon if they have the regular concealed carry license at an athletic event. However, with an enhanced carry license, you are allowed to carry at an athletic event. So this opinion dealt specifically with the ability to carry at municipal parks during athletic events.
And there was another question about whether you could carry in a building in a municipal park. And that has not changed. You cannot carry within a building in a municipal park unless you
Speaker 155
50:55
have the enhanced license. Okay. And I'm not trying to go
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
50:59
down a rat hole here, but I think you'll follow where I'm going. There is a city, which we just happen to be sitting in right now, and it has a zoo. And when you pass the zoo, there is a sign that prohibits carrying any firearm,
and it ends it by saying, by order of the city manager. And I have always taken offense to that because I didn't realize that city managers were able to promulgate laws. But in any event, that's what the sign says at the Little Rock Zoo. Now, if you go to the zoo and you're caring and you don't go in any of the buildings, you just walk around the outside exhibits and look at the animals, would you be in violation of any statute?
What would be the status of an individual that was
Speaker 157
51:58
doing that? Senator, what I would say, I'm not sure of the status of how the Little Rock Zoo is owned. It's in
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
52:06
War Memorial Park, so that helps clarify it. It may not, but just in case, I wanted to add that. Thank you, Senator. We want to
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
52:15
stick to the bounds of our opinion. We haven't looked specifically at the zoo itself,
and if there's an opinion request to look at the zoo, we'd be happy to
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
52:26
do that. i could consider doing that okay thank you and and one if i have mr if i could mr chairman i have for our parks people and for for mr ryle i have one further question thank you um marty you mentioned the the and i'm going to use degray as a good example it's a it's a federal lake that arkansas state parks has facility there and there are different exceptions to that but
But if I, for example, had a houseboat in the marina at DeGray, would I lose my Second Amendment rights because I was on a federal funded lake? Or what would that be since I'm staying on my own boat at DeGray Lake State Park? I cannot
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
53:26
Yes, sir. We don't manage the lake as far as on, you know, the houseboats. That would be the Corps of Engineering Federal Navigable Waterway.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
53:36
So it would be up to the Corps and not, I'm not talking about being in the lodge. The lodge is different. It's a building and it is, I kind of get that. But, you know, when you're on your own boat or in your own car and in your own home, so to speak, and in many cases some of these boats are bigger than a house
and qualify as a second home under a lot of federal laws. I'm just trying to say where are my rights abrogated was my question, and I think your answer is you're not sure, and I'm certainly not sure either, so tell me if I'm not hearing that correctly. Yes, sir. It would be
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
54:14
at the discretion of the Corps. Our boundary ends at 408, the watermark, or our lease stops. Okay. all right
Speaker 164
54:21
that's that that part i do understand thank you thank you mr chairman you're welcome
Chair
Unverified
54:28
representative richardson scott you're recognized for a question thank you mr chair uh so this probably runs back to our
Speaker 167
54:36
friends from the ag's office and if you could indulge me just for a second you've used the term uh multiple times especially when we're talking about the the municipal parks you've you've specifically referenced the permit carry I want to know if the opinion approaches unpermitted carriers in any way and if there is any specific
approach to how they would be regulated in that particular environment can they can they not carry according to the AG in
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
55:12
a municipal park yes the opinion does touch on that and unpermitted carriers whether they're carrying openly or concealed are permitted to carry in a municipal park according to this opinion okay thank you
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
55:30
I think that what they were saying about the compartments is within buildings so
So I just want to make sure we understand that's within buildings. So could you just restate that? We're not talking about open-air park. We're talking about a state building is where the permits come into play, correct? So for
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
55:52
that clarification, no, you are not permitted to carry an estate building unless you have an enhanced concealed carry license. Right. But whether
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
56:01
you have a permit or not, you can carry in a state park, as long as it's not inside of a building.
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
56:10
That is correct. Thank you. Thanks, Senator. Representative Rye, you're recognized for a question. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for you. Mark Twain Forest, which is
either in Arkansas at least a little bit or not, but if it is, is
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
56:35
that federal property? it's not arkansas state park property sir so i'm not sure whose property that is
it's close isn't it yes sir it's close but it's not part of
us thank y'all thank you Senator
Rice, another question. Do either one of you know, I'll go to parks first. Are there exceptions where people can ask permission to be able to carry within a state-owned building without enhanced?
Speaker 157
57:16
do you know of any I'm not aware of any was
this question in reference to a municipal park or a state park could be yes I'm just a general question is there an exception
Speaker 180
57:39
if somebody asked from an authority over that facility if they
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
57:54
contain an exception yes sir we have had visitors
come to our overnight accommodations and we just we appreciate them approaching us with that and we try to make
Speaker 135
58:03
accommodations with the weapon locked and unloaded sir and I mean the reason I'm
asking you do have people that are traveling and they stop and spend money in our parks they're not going to travel if if they believe in second amendment and protection they're going to have it with them and they'd rather not leave it in their car or automobile uh and to be able to do that and it meant to me it makes sense
if they can ask can can we do this and it's done in a responsible way so there are some reasons for some exceptions and again like you said you appreciate people being open about that yes
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
58:42
sir we make every attempt to make accommodations thank you
seeing no further questions from committee members go sure
you have any closing comment thank y'all for being here today seeing no further business before this committee this committee is meeting is
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Comments by Co-Chairs
C. Director’s Report and Overview of Duck Season
D. Discussion of Concealed Handgun Carry Laws in Arkansas State Parks
E. Other Business
F. Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — ALC - GAME & FISH/STATE POLICE, Nov 17, 2025 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Dwight Tosh Chair
Unverified
Doug Shonerock
Unverified
Speaker 8
Speaker 10
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
Speaker 26
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 31
Speaker 32
Speaker 35
Speaker 37
Speaker 38
Speaker 28
Speaker 51
Speaker 54
Speaker 49
Speaker 57
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Speaker 66
Speaker 74
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 92
Speaker 106
Speaker 107
Speaker 65
Speaker 62
Speaker 100
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 48
Speaker 9
Speaker 123
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
Speaker 125
Speaker 128
Speaker 134
Speaker 53
Speaker 140
Marty Ryall
Unverified
Senator Terry Rice Chair
Unverified
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 155
Speaker 157
Speaker 42
Speaker 160
Speaker 164
Speaker 167
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
Speaker 180
Speaker 135