New Bass Pro Shops location announced for Fort Smith, to open in 2026
FORT SMITH, Ark. (KNWA/KFTA) — According to a news release sent out by the company Monday, Bass Pro Shops will be opening a new Outpost retail location in Fort Smith.
This store would cover 70,000 square feet on Rogers Avenue, according to the release. The company plans to open the store in early 2026.
'We are honored to open our newest location in the Natural State and are grateful for the opportunity to serve the many passionate sportsmen and women in this beautiful region,' said Johnny Morris, noted conservationist and founder of Bass Pro Shops via the release. 'We're proud to become neighbors with our longtime friends from Pradco Outdoor Brands and want to give a special thanks to Bennie Westphal from the Westphal Companies development group for his support in welcoming us to the region.'
On July 18, 2023, the Fort Smith Board of Directors voted to move forward with a large-scale retail project (colloquially known as 'Project X'). As a condition of the deal, anyone associated with the project had to sign a nondisclosure agreement. At the time, the project promised $28 million in annual sales and 93 jobs.
This Bass Pro Shops location will be the retailer's third in Arkansas. The other two are in Rogers and Little Rock.
This is a developing story and KNWA/FOX24 will update this article as more information becomes available.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fort Smith human resources director retires amid internal auditor hiring controversy
FORT SMITH, Ark. (KNWA/KFTA) — The human resources director for Fort Smith, who has been recently involved in a controversy regarding the hiring and subsequent dismissal of an internal auditor, has retired. Rick Lolley has served as the city's Chief Human Resources Officer since 2018. The city announced on Saturday that Lolley's retirement was effective immediately. 'Rick Lolley has demonstrated considerable experience and instilled a level of professionalism in the city's Human Resources Department over his seven years as its department head,' Acting City Administrator Jeff Dingman said in a news release. 'I wish Rick well as he moves on.' The announcement comes after the Board of Directors voted to hire Rebecca Cowan as internal auditor on April 22. Two days later, the board changed course after it was revealed that Cowan faced a felony stalking charge. Fort Smith-based attorneys Joey McCutchen and Stephen Napurano filed the lawsuit against the city on May 2 after claiming Fort Smith failed to provide all public records related to the hiring of Cowan. The City of Fort Smith told Talk Business & Politics, 'Human Resources produced the background check and relayed the information to Administration per City protocol.' Judge rules City of Fort Smith violated Freedom of Information Act following failed hire Acting City Administrator Jeff Dingman, in an email to McCutchen, said, 'The background check information was delivered in hard copy. That record no longer exists. The Chief Human Resources Officer does not have a copy of the packet that was delivered. There is no hard copy.' An email from Dingman, not included in the city's FOIA response, was later obtained directly from a board member, according to the lawsuit. This email stated that Dingman 'did not believe a background check was performed.' The lawsuit also alleged the city failed to respond in a timely manner and may have withheld or destroyed public records. On June 3, the judge assigned to the lawsuit ruled in favor of McCutchen and Napurano during a hearing. An order, officially filed on June 5, said 'The Defendants' failure to timely respond, thefailure to provide clearly responsive records, the absence of any valid extension or waiver, and the troubling lack of transparency regarding the missing background check' were reasons as to why the city was ruled to have violated the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. 'The Court is troubled by the timeline of events, the lack of transparency demonstrated by the City of Fort Smith and City Administrator Jeff Dingman, and by the missing background check which, according to the testimony, was provided by Mr. Rick Lolley to Mr. Jeff Dingman but was neither preserved nor produced in response to the FOIA request,' the judge said in the order. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Class-Action Lawsuit Accuses the Archery Industry of Price Fixing
A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in federal court last week is accusing the archery industry of colluding to fix prices of products at all levels. The suit, which was filed May 30 in U.S. District Court in Utah, names big-box store retailers like Bass Pro Shops, bowmakers like Mathews, and the Archery Trade Association for conspiring 'to fix the prices of — and eliminate price discounting and competition for — archery products.' The suit was first reported by Reuters on Monday. The 63-page lawsuit hinges on a policy known as Minimum Advertised Pricing, or MAP. Many archery companies and outdoor retailers won't sell their archery equipment, particularly compound bows, for less than a certain amount. If a bow shop undercuts agreed upon prices, manufacturers can — and have — enforced their MAP policies by revoking a shop's authorized dealer status for their brand. The lawsuit accuses the ATA of a 'campaign to artificially raise prices through MAP policies.' MAP policies grew from a need to combat online retail giants like Amazon. The global retailer began undercutting brick and mortar shops by selling products at discount, and without the previously included advice and bow servicing that local sporting goods stores offered customers for free when they purchased equipment. For example, flagship bows from top companies like Mathews, Hoyt, PSE, Bowtech, and others are not sold online. So if you want to purchase the new Mathews, you must show up in person at an authorized dealer. Usually, your local bow shop won't sell you a new bow below the MAP. While there, however, you'll have the opportunity to test-shoot bows and have a bow technician set up your bow properly. If new top bows were to be sold online and shipped directly to your home, industry insiders agree that local bow shops would be doomed. In recent years there's also been a rise in knock-off companies ripping off the design and packaging of top archery products, then selling them at discounted prices online. Customers would think they were buying a brand's top-tier broadheads, but actually receive a cheaper Chinese-made product. Warranty claims began to increase, and archery companies found themselves dealing with quality control and brand degradation. MAP policies were designed to help address this. MAP is a complicated issue, according to industry insiders, but such practices are legal when executed correctly and do not qualify as price fixing as defined by the Federal Trade Commission. The key distinction is that price fixing usually occurs between competitors, while MAP pricing occurs throughout the entire industry. 'MAP is generally legal if it's implemented unilaterally by the manufacturer,' says one former archery industry insider, who asked not to be identified due to the pending litigation. 'Price fixing is when competitors agree to a fixed price. And of course, a manufacturer and a retailer aren't competitors: one is a supplier, one is the seller.' The key, they emphasize, is 'unilaterally.' That means a manufacturer cannot favor one shop or distributor by offering one better pricing. Meanwhile, as e-commerce sales of low-priced and knock-off archery products continued to grow, bow manufacturers and accessory makers looked for an industry-wide solution. To protect their brand values and the industry itself, many companies began implementing MAP policies. 'MAP was completely legal,' the source says. 'No one was suggesting retailers fix prices and force consumers to buy X product at Z price. That never happened and never would have happened. And obviously retailers wouldn't have agreed to it. Retailers want the ability to do things their own way.' Another consideration is that price fixing is often done secretly — because it's illegal. MAP policies are widely publicized by everyone from the ATA to individual manufacturers. (You can find Bowtech's MAP policy here.) One key allegation the lawsuit may be seeking to prove, however, is that the industry tried to enforce not just the advertised price, but the sales price of archery equipment. 'Do I think there's price fixing? No, I've never participated in it. I know that I have dealers sell way below MAP in their store, but they do not advertise that way. And that is their decision. That is their store. I cannot dictate what they sell it for,' said one bow company executive who was not authorized by their legal team to speak publicly about the lawsuit. 'It's a slippery slope because if there's no protection from an advertising standpoint, the big guys are gonna gobble up the small guys. There are shops in the country right now that sell Mathews at $50 to a $100 over cost so that they will sell every Mathews within a 150 mile radius and try to push the smaller guys out of business. I've been told that by big dealers. They don't advertise it but people just know they go in there, you know, they're gonna pay $50 to a hundred over as opposed to $350 to $400 over. So if they could start advertising on what they want and there's nothing we could do, it would drive half the shops in this country out of business.' Because ATA is a non-profit organization, its records are subject to public records requests. The lawsuit is packed with excerpts of these statements that are intended to bolster the price-fixing argument. Here are a few examples: 'These coordinated MAPs have benefited the industry collectively, allowing retailers and distributors to 'strive for a minimum of 40% profit,' according to the industry trade association National Archery Buyers Association ('NABA'). As one Archery Products retailer observed, 'Every dealer I have ever talked to thinks everything in archery is overpriced today, just as I do . . . . [I]s archery overpriced, absolutely.' 'The ATA explained that 'MAP . . .policies help retailers stay in tune with the market and margin expectations. In other words, if you understand and follow a manufacturer's MAP policy, you'll be better positioned to make more money and run a successful business.' The suit is brought by plaintiff Joseph Santarlas from Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 'on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.' In other words, anyone who has bought the archery products referenced in the suit. Santarlas was working Friday and was not immediately available for comment when reached by phone. None of the eight attorneys who signed their names to the lawsuit have replied to Outdoor Life's repeated requests for comment this week. Four different firms, with offices in California, Washington D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania, are listed as counsel for the plaintiff. Most of the firms specialize in antitrust and class-action lawsuits. One industry insider noted that the defendants named in the suit are all larger companies with deeper pockets that might be able to settle such a lawsuit before ever reaching court. Smaller manufacturers and mom-and-pop bow shops are not named. The lawsuit names: Hoyt Bowtech Mathews PSE Cabela's Dick's Bass Pro Shop Jay's Sporting Goods Kinsey's Outdoors Lancaster Archery Supply Archery Trade Association Two software companies that helped companies track MAP pricing Most companies listed in the lawsuit, including Bass Pro Shops, did not return requests for comment or declined to comment to OL. The Archery Trade Association also did not return a call for comment, but issued a brief public statement via email on Friday shortly after OL reached out. Read Next: The Heavy Arrow Trend Is Dead. Speed Is Back 'The Archery Trade Association has learned of a recently filed lawsuit against the ATA and a group of archery manufacturers, distributors and retailers,' reads the statement. 'The complaint seeks relief related to Minimum Advertised Pricing (MAP) policies dating back more than a decade. The ATA is in the process of preparing an appropriate response to the complaint and looks forward to a swift and favorable conclusion to this matter.' Scott Einsmann contributed reporting.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Judge rules City of Fort Smith violated Freedom of Information Act following failed hire
FORT SMITH, Ark. (KNWA/KFTA) — A Sebastian County judge has ruled that the City of Fort Smith and its acting city administrator violated the state's Freedom of Information Act. Fort Smith-based attorneys Joey McCutchen and Stephen Napurano filed the lawsuit against the city on May 2 after claiming Fort Smith failed to provide all public records related to the hiring of Rebecca Cowan as internal auditor. Cowan was unanimously approved by the Board of Directors on April 22, but the offer was rescinded after it was revealed she had a pending felony stalking charge. The City of Fort Smith told Talk Business & Politics, 'Human Resources produced the background check and relayed the information to Administration per City protocol.' Acting City Administrator Jeff Dingman, in an email to McCutchen, said, 'The background check information was delivered in hard copy. That record no longer exists. The Chief Human Resources Officer does not have a copy of the packet that was delivered. There is no hard copy.' An email from Dingman, not included in the city's FOIA response, was later obtained directly from a board member, according to the lawsuit. This email stated that Dingman 'did not believe a background check was performed.' The lawsuit also alleged the city failed to respond in a timely manner and may have withheld or destroyed public records. Fort Smith Boys & Girls Club awards $64K in 2025-26 college scholarships On June 3, the judge assigned to the lawsuit ruled in favor of McCutchen and Napurano during a hearing. An order, officially filed on June 5, said 'The Defendants' failure to timely respond, thefailure to provide clearly responsive records, the absence of any valid extension or waiver, and the troubling lack of transparency regarding the missing background check' were reasons as to why the city was ruled to have violated the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. A spokesperson from the City of Fort Smith gave the following statement to KNWA/FOX24 in response to the judge's ruling: 'While the City of Fort Smith provided all relevant documents in response to Mr. McCutchen's FOIA request, we did not meet the three-business-day deadline outlined in the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act and missed the deadline by two business days. The City remains committed to operating with transparency and integrity in all public records processes.' The ruling said the city will be responsible for paying attorney fees to McCutchen and Napurano. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
