For the second consecutive year, the South Carolina legislature has failed to consider deer-management recommendations made by the SCDNR, and biologist Charles Ruth said that regulation changes are long overdue.
“It’s obviously too late for the 2012-13 season, so the best hope for implementing this popular proposal would be for the 2014-15 time frame,” Ruth said. “Without someone in the legislature taking interest and filing a bill, the proper management of our deer herd and the desire of the majority of hunters is on hold.”
Ruth said many hunters in South Carolina feel that antlered deer need to be protected from hunting pressure, and SCDNR has addressed those concerns — as well as what biologists feel are needed changes to deer management — in recommendations that the legislature has largely ignored.
“For a number of years, many South Carolina deer hunters have expressed concern over the unregulated harvest of antlered bucks,” Ruth said. “Although a posted five-buck limit exists in certain game zones, these limits are additive among zones and … have never been enforceable. In other game zones, the law states there’s no daily or seasonal limit on antlered deer.
“Many hunters feel that this situation leads to overexploitation of bucks — particularly young bucks — resulting in a poor overall management approach in most areas. Hunters have shown support for reducing harvest pressure on antlered deer. This should result in more total antlered deer, having the opportunity to see and harvest more mature bucks, and having a more-balanced adult sex ratio.
“Many hunters indicate it is time for South Carolina’s deer-management program to become more proactive and that they would support a move to reduce the harvest pressure on bucks in order to increase both the chance of seeing more bucks and the opportunity to harvest mature bucks.”
In December 2010, the SCDNR board voted to propose changes in deer-harvest regulations. When the legislature took no action in 2011, the oard modified the recommendations and submitted them again for 2012.
According to Ruth, the current proposal is for a statewide limit of five bucks per hunter, with no more than three bucks per hunter in Game Zones 1 and 2.
It includes mandatory tagging for all harvested deer, and a modest fee to pay for the tagging program and for deer research and management.
Under the plan, residents would receive five buck tags and four doe tags for $20, the same amount that most hunters currently spend on doe tags.
Details of the recommendations can be found at www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/deer/management.html
Advocates of the proposal also feel law enforcement measures should be implemented, as well, to ensure that limits would have the desired effect.
“This grass-roots effort originally began as more and more hunters expressed concern with the liberal or nonexistent bag limits, as well as, the ‘brown is down’ mentality that exists in South Carolina,” Ruth said.
The SCDNR surveyed the public in 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2010 to get its input on deer-management goals. According to Ruth, through public meetings and surveys, hunters overwhelmingly supported the idea of reducing the buck harvest through regulation changes and implementing a tagging system to help with enforcement.
Ruth said he thinks the proposed changes in regulations would produce a healthier deer herd statewide, as well as addressing the desires of a majority of hunters.
“Harvest data collected over the last 13 years suggest that it would,” he said. “The common perception that a small percentage of hunters exploit the current system and harvest large numbers of bucks is essentially true. For example, only four percent of hunters harvest more than five bucks annually; however, these hunters harvest 20 percent of all the bucks taken in the state each year. It would follow if a limit was in place, fewer bucks would be harvested, leaving more bucks for the following season.
“With changes in deer habitat, a decreasing trend in deer numbers over the last 10 years and the impact of coyotes on the population — which we now know is significant — there needs to be better harvest management as we look at the future of our deer population and hunting.”
Be the first to comment