AGFC turns ears to mud motors

In response to noise complaints, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission is looking to quiet “mud motors” on wildlife management areas.

Mud motors are aircooled, direct drive, outboard motors that turn a prop almost level to a boat hull. They are slower than motors with offset propellers, but mud motors enable a flatbottom boat to reach areas that are inaccessible to traditional outboards.

Their defining characteristic is noise.

Brad Young, major for the AGFC’s enforcement division, briefed the commission about the challenges of regulating mud motors Wednesday in Little Rock.

Mud motors are excessively noisy, Young said. The U.S. Coast Guard recommends a decibel level of 86 at a distance of 50 feet for motors, he explained. A jackhammer operates at 98 decibels.

“At noise levels above 80 decibels, people have to speak very loudly,” Young said. “Over 85-90 decibels, people have to shout, and when they exceed 95 decibels, people have to move closer to communicate.”

When idling, a standard mud motor operates at 102 dB, Young said. At full throttle, the level is 107.5 dB.

Most states that have regulations regulating motor noise limit noise output to 86 dB, Young said.

“The average mud motor exceeds what other states limit coming off the showroom floor,” Young said.

However, other states have determined motor noise regulations to be unenforceable, Young said.

Currently, the AGFC limits mud motors to 37 horsepower on wildlife management areas. The smallest is about 18 horsepower, but all mud motors exceed USCG noise levels.

Commissioner Ken Reeves of Harrison asked the enforcement and wildlife management divisions to examine the pros and cons of banning mud motors on wildlife management areas entirely.

Several commissioners said that mud motors are detrimental to wildlife and to the hunting experience on WMAs.

Commissioner Ford Overton of Little Rock said it’s appropriate for the commission to explore options if mud motors are generating legitimate complaints.

“If you go out before daylight and you have to be off the WMA by noon, you’re probably running everything in the country off that WMA,” Overton said.

Commissioner Joe Morgan of Little Rock said it’s undeniable that mud motors affect wildlife and hunters at Bayou Meto WMA.

“I was standing in the parking lot [at his property near Bayou Meto] the other morning about 4:30 [a.m.], and it sounded like somebody had turned the hounds of hell loose at the lower [Vallier] turnaround,” Morgan said. “The lower turnaround from my house is about mile and a half.

“Say a guy went in there with a mud motor and was lucky enough to kill a limit by 7:30 or 8,” Morgan added. “When he comes out of there, he’s destroyed the hunting environment for a mile around him.”

Young asked the commission to produce an enforceable regulation if it decides to proceed. That will be very difficult, he said, adding that he conducted an informal poll that revealed zero support among judges in whose courts such cases would be heard.

RENAMING BAYOU METO

The Commission is considering renaming Bayou Meto WMA in honor of former commissioner George Dunklin.

Unquestionably, Dunklin was a tireless advocate for ducks and for waterfowl habitat conservation during his long association with Ducks Unlimited and during his time on the commission. He was courageous and steadfast against insurmountable odds as a commissioner, and he contributed significantly to Bayou Meto WMA itself. These and other qualities earned my profound respect and admiration.

However, it is inadvisable to name Bayou Meto for Dunklin or anybody else.

Bayou Meto is a monumental, legendary property whose name is as archetypical as Coca-Cola, Ford or Chevrolet. Nothing in the hunting world is more closely associated with a state than Bayou Meto is to Arkansas. Nobody will ever call it George Dunklin Bayou Meto WMA, just as nobody ever refers to Lake Conway as the Craig D. Campbell Lake Conway Water Storage Reservoir.

The Lake Conway travesty prompted the commission to stop naming properties after commissioners. It reached a point where majority blocs on the commission threatened dissenting commissioners with not naming properties after them if they didn’t get in line.

Abused as it was, that practice was detrimental to the commission and to the public. In the case of Lake Conway, it was farcical.

For the sake of simplicity and integrity, it should not resume.