Welcome to the Arkansas Wildlife Podcast, the official podcast of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.

We are talking hunting, fishing and conservation with engaging guests and in-depth discussions with game and fish staff.

It's Arkansas Wildlife, the podcast for all things outdoors in the natural state.

Hey, welcome to the Arkansas Wildlife Podcast.

I'm Trey Reed.

Thank you for tuning in to our podcast about all things game and fish.

And we are joined again this week by Brad Karner.

He's deputy director at Arkansas Game and Fish, former chief of wildlife.

What other.

I see you were you were quail about turkey and turkey.

So you did Turkey and quail and wildlife chief and private lands biologist in Camden.

Well, you've done you've you've done what?

Started out extra labor technician actually at Shari Bay.

Rainey break WMI.

Is that right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So been been all over the state you've been around As long as I can remember, there has been contention about, hunting deer with dogs.

And, there is a strong tradition of that across the southern United States in particular.

And here in Arkansas, of course, it was probably a little bit different game 40, 50, 60 years ago when you could pretty much go out in the wilds of Arkansas and hunt anywhere.

And then a lot of our lands got, you know, leased by deer clubs for the paper companies, you know, started posting those that kind of change things up.

And we've seen changing regulations around, around that for, again, I mean, literally decades, this year, new regs that, dogs pursuing deer, fox or coyote are required to wear, GPS, and electric collars with the capability of correction this to to to to be clear, this applies to public lands in Arkansas.

Correct.

Yeah.

That's a very good distinction that yes, it just applies to dogs.

Pursuing deer, fox and coyote on public land.

So, does not does not apply to coon dogs or squirrel dogs or beagles.

Raccoon rabbit dogs.

Yeah.

Or private land.

It's just dogs pursuing deer, fox and coyote on public land.

Brad.

What?

I mean, what was the the genesis of this regulation or how how did we arrive at this point?

Yeah.

So if we look back just to the previous regulation cycle, the the 2024 regulation cycle, there was, a good bit of discussion.

We had, input from the public on both sides of this issue.

We had we heard from landowners that, were upset with dogs on their property repeatedly.

We heard from individuals that use dogs that did not want to, did not feel that there were any changes needed.

And ultimately, at that time, and I will be clear, two years ago, the the initial proposal was, similar to this.

It was a requirement of a GPS collar with behavior correction capability.

But it it applied to all hunting dogs, whether on public or private.

And so during this past two years, our enforcement division staff are game wardens, in the parts of the state where they routinely field some of these complaints on, on both sides of the issue, they really work to kind of fine tune the proposal into what was ultimately approved, so that it was very specific, applied to specific locations.

And that's a key point of of clarification.

There's been rumors, there's been misinformation out there that it applies to all hunting dogs, applies to both public and private land.

That that's not true.

It's just dogs pursuing deer, fox and coyote on public land.

That's a good clarification.

I mean, I you know, it.

I think there is a lot of misinformation out there, fielding some calls on live radio, you know, in the last few weeks, I've heard some of those, misunderstandings, if you will, about how the how the rig was set up and I just go ahead.

I just want to take another minute there to.

And for those, like you mentioned, it is a long, standing tradition in the state and in our agency.

I, I've been with the agency almost 28 years now, and it's been many years since we have made any, action that has removed, dog hunting from areas.

We've we've kind of settled on the.

These are the areas where it's still allowed.

They're still ten w maze.

I believe that allowed deer hunting with dogs.

And so we've not made any additional restrictions or, you know, removed that opportunity.

This is simply, a requirement for the individuals that are going to, to do that, that, you know, they have to not you not taking anything away as you're saying.

Correct.

Well, this is a philosophical question, and I, I hesitate to ask, but what why is this issue.

Why is particularly deer hunting with dogs such a why does it bring out the passions in people so much?

Why is it one of those things that, like we always seem to be talking about?

Again, I say this goes back decades.

Yes.

And here we are deep into the 21st century now, and we're still talking about it.

Yeah.

I think really the the conflicts that keep bringing that, to the forefront are just, you know, is, as long as, the dogs, if if the hunters are able to keep the dogs on the property where they're intended and they don't, go on to on the neighbors that that they prefer to hunt a different way without dogs.

If we, can keep the dogs where they're intended to be and where, then we hope to lessen the conflict there.

I guess it's really a, I mean, a conflict between people and dogs are just a tool that that that is enable some of that conflict to take place.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And I think that's accurate.

Well, an interesting issue for sure, I think.

I'm glad you brought up that last point, Brad.

I mean about like game and Fish has not like taken areas away.

So this is just, it almost seems like this is an attempt to let's try to fix the problem so that there are not more restrictive ways to tackle that issue in the future.

Yeah.

Another key point to that.

Like I said, our our enforcement division staff were really the lead on because they're the ones on the ground that are in the middle.

They get the calls.

Yeah, they're they're the ones trying to to sort through these conflicts.

But as they looked at other states that still allow dog hunting, deer hunting with dogs, and they have had similar regulations that states like Florida and Alabama, that have allowed them to sustain dog hunting there with, with similar regulations in place.

So that that was part of, what they found is they were, helping to craft these proposals.

Yeah.

Look.

Where what how have other jurisdictions dealt with this?

Yeah.

Interesting.

Let's move on to another one that generated a lot of lot of debate.

And I think also a lot of misunderstandings, about what, what it actually means.

And that's the designation of Camp Robinson Special use Area, as well as, Perry Michaels, Blue Mountain, as now, Lake Conway Wildlife Management Area and Perry Michaels Creek Wildlife Management Area.

What does that mean, Brad?

What's what's the difference between an such a and a w ama?

That, lots of decades of history there.

For the the two special use areas, a lot of the special regulations that were in place were really, largely around field trials, various sorts, but, bird dog field trials, primarily, had the, the capability to, release quail for those trials.

User groups were allowed to feed those, maintain those birds, have have their reserved events.

There were some special regulations around horseback usage and timing, but really, as we were looking again at how do we standardize and have all, all of our public lands considered wildlife management areas, we move forward with, this proposed change to change that designation.

It's important, that, you know, because, the commission and several of us heard, through many of the user groups that had concerns about would this change in designation impact their ability to use those two areas?

Really the the short answer is really minimal impact on their use.

The the intent is that these public lands would still be open and accessible to all users, hunters, field trail enthusiasts, horseback riders, archery groups that use the Camp Robinson area regularly.

And and really, we have codes in place that allow, field trials to occur on Mars, with approval of wildlife division chief and and through an approval process.

So we we are working to, kind of amend that process.

It likely will flow through our, our license system now kind of a permit process request, an event, that sort of thing and have some, some sideboards there.

So really, as we have met, with some of these user groups, our message to them is that we, we, really do not intend for there to be significant impacts to the way that they've used these areas, made maybe some minor, minor tweaks, but they will still be allowed to have their field trials, archery events, etc.

just, still having to manage that, having trying to avoid, open hunting seasons, that sort of thing.

What is the benefit?

You know, maybe at large or to, to a larger, you know, user, not just specific user groups, but all user groups of, of this designation, really for us, one of the primary benefits that we see, a greater ability to really manage these areas for wildlife, there, there have been as we were trying to manage for the events, there were some, you know, we we were, in some instances the, the habitat treatments were kind of secondary and not fully able to be implemented, in a way, things like in the time in a prescribed fire and those sorts of things where we were having to, kind of work around workaround.

Yeah.

And so we've been up in saying that the habitat management will take, priority, as it would on any WMI, but we will still allow the other uses.

Yeah.

As it fits around the priority.

And I think, our listeners should and we talk about it all the time on the podcast.

But when we talk about managing wildlife, we're really talking about managing habitat, that that is how you make a difference for wildlife.

And so that's why that's such an important component of, of of what gaming fish does.

Well, one key, other benefit specific to the Camp Robinson issue.

And just, for reference, the reason that we didn't name it Camp Robinson WMD is the military base.

There's already a camp.

Okay, maybe we didn't want to with the same name.

And so when we, chose Lake Conway WMD, it also gave us the ability to add in several hundred acres around Lake Conway, which which adjoined the the former estuary.

So there's some additional, 7 or 800 acres of land that will now be opened, hunting with that, that change in designation.

Great explanation.

Brad.

One of the things I think regs changes that I'm most excited about is our change in the way we handle lease land permits.

I have bought those in the past, primarily for turkey hunting.

I'm not going to tell you which ones, but, used to be $40, for each w may, if you wanted to hunt for you, you've had to buy four permits.

Tell me how the new system is going to work.

Yeah.

So part of this, standardization simplification process also included, a hard look at our license products.

We have, we had a 131 different license products.

Just.

Unreal.

Yeah.

And so is you talk about a user experience confusion.

How can we simplify that?

We we took a hard look at.

Okay.

Are there products that we can eliminate.

Can we consolidate streamline lease land permits was one that quickly we identified that for a couple of reasons.

Instead of having ten separate WMI specific permits, let's just standardize that into one lease land permit.

It, allows greater flexibility for the user.

It, you know, if they want to hunt, Jack mountain and also Big Timber, Debbie Maze that are there close by.

They can do that under the one one permit.

Now, it is a price increase from $40 to $75.

I will say that our annual costs far, far exceed what we generate in revenue from those lease land permits.

Explained to our listeners when we talk about lease lands, the Arkansas Gaming Fish Commission leases those lands just like a deer camp.

Would it?

And we have to pay.

Yes, a premium just like the deer camp.

It.

So, the lease land program goes back probably into the mid to late 1980s, as is lands around the state, particularly in South Arkansas.

Industrial timber companies started leasing, property to hunting clubs.

There were parts of the state where there was otherwise little or no other public lands.

And so the agency started leasing property, places like Lafayette County.

WMI was, I think, among the first big timber WMI.

And so we were really focused on parts of the state where there was not much other public land.

And it's it's an annual lease agreement that our agency would work, with the timber company, we would lease the property, have some minimal amount.

You know, there may be some gates, some parking areas, some signage.

And for, you know, a permit.

It used to be years ago, it was $20.

It started out, and then it increased to 40.

An individual would have one full year of hunting access to that property, which would, you know, include deer season, turkey season, whatever.

We annually lease, a little under 300,000 acres.

I think it's 290,000 acres statewide.

That's in ten different.

Debbie May's our annual cost.

Our lease costs.

Just like, individual private hunting clubs have been going up.

Just just like for the other individuals.

We're annually spending over $1.7 million annually to provide that 290,000 acres, a public hunting opportunity.

We generate about $250,000 in permit sales.

Yeah.

So we're taking a, It's a loss leader.

Yes.

To to to provide opportunities for sportsmen and women of Arkansas.

Yeah.

And so when we say that we're increasing that permit fee from 40 to $75, giving a hunter access to, in essence, 290,000 acres of land, 75 bucks to access 300,000, almost 300,000 acres of land.

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

Yeah, and and we're still going to be far short of offsetting our work.

That's not the goal of it, right?

We're providing hunting access.

But, just understand that we are not, generating millions and millions of dollars off of that, permit fee increase.

Brad, moving on to, a couple of others.

I want to try to get in before we run out of time here.

I think we're going to have to do waterfowl in a in a third episode.

So, if you're if you're a duck or goose hunter, be patient.

We're going to get to you soon.

This was a pretty interesting one.

I thought on on gaming fish on the.

Excuse me, w maze or lakes?

If you don't have a hunting or fishing license and you want to use those areas, say, to ride your mountain bike or hike or, you know, add to your life list of birds or whatever, use, you're not hunting or fishing, obviously, because you don't have a hunting or fishing license.

We are now asking, and requiring, those users to buy, it's called a conservation permit.

Yes.

How does that work?

And what kind of explain the rationale of how we got to this?

Yeah.

So, yeah, you explained it pretty well.

This applies only to a JFC owned W or lakes, and part of our, communication plan will be clearly identifying those lists.

There's 54 W matches.

I believe that, the agency owns, I don't know the number of GSC owned lakes, but it's far less than that.

But, for users that, do not have, a valid hunting or fishing license, and, but they're accessing using those areas where, who will require a $10 and 50 cent, conservation permit, which is also the same price as what the base basic hunting or hunting or fishing license will be.

So, like you mentioned, for anyone that's out kayaking, birdwatching, camping, we used a product, some may remember a few years back, we had created, a Debbie and my camping permit for Debbie May's.

We had started to experience, people coming in and just camping long term.

Almost like squatting.

Yeah, yeah.

And so, in order to at least require something and to have some side boards there, we had created that camping permit.

We we eliminated it, but kind of, broadened, the scope so that it, it was more than just camping.

But again, if, if you already have a fishing or hunting license, you're good to go, right?

Nothing else is it is it.

You know, there's been a debate going on for many years, not a debate, but there there have been in the conservation world looking for ways to get what, for lack of a better term, we called non consumptive users the not the hook and bullet.

We have ways of capturing revenue, especially federal excise taxes or wildlife restoration.

Sport fish restoration acts.

Pittman.

Robertson.

Dingell.

Johnson.

If you if you know those names.

Yeah.

The hunters basically pay their own way there and anglers as well.

It's this kind of in that same spirit.

It's kind of in that same spirit of, providing a means for those users to also contribute to and help support it.

You help support.

I mean, they're they're the reaping benefits, maybe not in the form of protein on the plate, but but still taking an experience from it.

Yes.

Yeah.

Access to, you know, hundreds of thousands of acres of public land for, for their enjoyment.

So, yeah, that's, something new.

It kind of, to several may have kind of flown under the radar as we had a whole packet of 200 and something.

Other changes.

Yeah, I, I don't, don't tell on me, but I had no idea that was nominal.

Yeah.

And I will say that, we, you know, as we now shift to the communication phase of this regulations process and start work on guidebooks and identify needs for signage on out on these areas so that, you know, the user that goes shows up out there that there's something that, you know.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And, and, with all of these changes, I will say that, you know, our enforcement staff there will be, you know, a great deal of, discretion ration.

And, you know, they're they're not going to be heavy handed.

And, and, you certainly want to give adequate time for people to, to realize and understand what changes have been implemented and what what things are now required.

I think I saw a quote from Luke Naylor, our chief of wildlife, in the news release.

It came out after the meeting where many of these proposals were voted on.

And, you know, to paraphrase, like a lot of people are averse to change and like, well, there goes game and fish change and things again.

And there are significant changes.

I, we fully admit that.

But I think what Luke's kind of, again, to paraphrase, was like, but I think once you once you've kind of figured out what those changes are, you're probably going to like it.

I mean, you're going to it's going to things are going to be simpler and easier.

Yeah, yeah.

And another thing that I, we haven't talked about, it's related to the product side.

We really took a hard look over the years, we had added a lot of free products that that were required in code.

So may or May do remains per use permit.

Resident bear tag, a resident turkey tag, resident trapper permit.

All that were free products that were required if you were going to participate in those activities or use, maize.

We eliminated all of those.

Again, trying to streamline the experience for the user.

You know, because I found myself as I looked at my own hunting license and you just you've got all of these lists.

Yeah.

Products on there, and I, I've been there and and so I wanted to, to, to kind of make a statement that, we had developed all of those products to try to help, gather information on the users.

We wanted more information to know who was participating bear hunting, who's turkey hunting, and then what.

Then what are their opinions about how can.

And we still want to collect that data and we will look at other ways to is it, a hip tap survey question, you know, did did you hunt the a w my last year.

Gotcha.

Did.

And that it's a different way of still getting the get the information but not putting the burden on on the user to supply that to us by getting another line on the running wise and not having a regulatory requirement that they do that.

And something else under the same vein is that, you know, we've had for many years, a regulation that required a successful bear hunter had to submit a premolar right from their harvested bear within seven days or whatever, so that we could get age analysis and all that.

We eliminated that regulation requirement.

We're still going to voluntarily ask that hunters submit that.

Would you mind sending it to us?

But we're not going to write your ticket if you doubt.

Yes.

Yeah.

Brad, we we have almost bumped up against our, our our half our that we typically a lot for for the podcast.

There are a couple of things we didn't get to but they're you're going to find out about them in the guy.

But we are going to talk waterfowl on our next episode with Brad Karner, who I don't know anybody else in this agency who is more knowledgeable of our wildlife regulations and can articulate, what they are and the rationale behind them, as well as Brad Karner can.

Brad, thank you so much for being here.

Thank you all for listening.

We'll talk to you next time.