Article in Post and Courier
I’m on the fence with this one… I have been hunting all of my life in Charleston and Collenton counties and do not see a drop in the deer population. I also don’t feel the yotes doo that much damage to the deer population. I think if this passes, we are going to see a explosion in the deer population in SC that will cause all kinds of problems!! IMO, lets start charging out of state hunters through the nose to hunt here, get them to stay in their own state. Charge them $300 for 8 tags and make their licsence $1000… that will reduce the number of hunters in SC or at least boost the money intake for law enforcement!! These Florida and Georgia hunters are the reason we are paying $10-15 an acre to lease land.
quote:Careful Cracker... This crowd hates math... When you start bringing numbers into the conversation, people lose it!!!
Originally posted by Cracker Larryquote:
8 tags - $15 for residents,
That only $1.88 a deer. Jeez, cheaper than a box of shells or a squeeze tube of deer scent. Seem reasonable to me.
I agree with Big Wes.
Capt. Larry Teuton
Cracker Built Custom Boats“Ships are the nearest things to dreams that hands have ever made.” -Robert N. Rose
quote:You might be the lucky one... I know several hunting clubs that said 2014 was a slow year for them. That being said, in my mind, 1 year does not make a trend, so I would need more data to make up my mind if there is a true "drop".
Originally posted by pitviper0404I’m on the fence with this one… I have been hunting all of my life in Charleston and Collenton counties and do not see a drop in the deer population. I also don’t feel the yotes doo that much damage to the deer population. I think if this passes, we are going to see a explosion in the deer population in SC that will cause all kinds of problems!! IMO, lets start charging out of state hunters through the nose to hunt here, get them to stay in their own state. Charge them $300 for 8 tags and make their licsence $1000… that will reduce the number of hunters in SC or at least boost the money intake for law enforcement!! These Florida and Georgia hunters are the reason we are paying $10-15 an acre to lease land.
And THAT being said, SCDNR is usually on top of it… They tend to make pretty good decisions, so I have a tendency to trust them.
It’s pretty simple, if you hunt in agricultural lands, you see a good many deer. If you hunt in pine plantations, you won’t see nearly as many. We had a weird movement this year but there was a lot of logging activity on the property I hunt. I saw deer but not in the numbers that I have in previous seasons. Is that a impact of the logging or the nightly get out of the stand serenade of the trash dogs? Are deer numbers down due to the explosion in hog numbers?
Honestly, limiting the number of deer one person can take to 8 per season is an overall good move. Sure there are those that will shoot 20+ in a season and as long as they were making good use of the resource, I’ve always been fine with it. What chaps my ass is when I see full grown men who have been hunting for years shoot a small buck or spike just to kill a deer. The Brown is Down mentality is just stupid, you won’t have quality deer if you shoot the little ones too. Yeah, there are culls and bucks with bad genetics that should be removed, a 2.5yo 4 or 5 point isn’t one of them.
I’m all for it. Heck, my club rules are at least 4 on a side and a 16" minimum outside spread. We also limit ourselves to 2 bucks and 4 does as it stands or you’ll be paying a fine to the fertilizer fund. Makes you think about that buck before you squeeze the trigger.
I’m all for the change.
Mark
Pioneer 222 Sportfish Yamaha F300
Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal? I wouldn’t go so far as to call a dog filthy but they’re definitely dirty. But, a dog’s got personality. Personality goes a long way.
“Life’s tough…It’s even tougher if you’re stupid” John Wayne
I completely agree with the changes but I have two questions:
(1) Will there still be doe days? I would think not, but just curious
(2) How will DNR enforce this? Will check stations be put in place? Sounds expensive if so?
I will note ? when I dropped off a deer at Grooms this past year, the young man cleaning it cut and pulled the hide from under the doe tag so that the tag remained on the animal (wonder if DNR will check walk-in freezers)
I have hunted all through this State for 30 years, and the deer population is about as good as I have seen it. I think there are more and more lands being leased, and some of those clubs are managing for bigger bucks and not taking as many animals. There isn’t anything wrong with that. I am just saying that harvest numbers shouldn’t be the only data used in determining herd population.
This is at least partially about the money, and a brush at managing antler sizes Statewide. If they wanted a limit on bucks they could do that without going to a tag system, but there isn’t money in that. It has also been said it is about gathering a consistency in the regulations so that the regulations will be the same across all game zones in the State. Deer populations are not the same in game zones across the state and shouldn’t be managed that way, but once again $$$$$$$$
For whatever reason this bill was introduced it doesn’t seem like it is the best practice at managing the State’s Resources’.
Four doe tags for 2014 season-$20.00. Four doe tags, four buck tags for 2016 season-$15.00, don’t think it is all about the money.
Not everyone purchase doe tags. In the proposed change everybody not hunting on land with a quota program will have to purchase these tags.
The way the resource is being managed now is completely arbitrary. How does DNR even know how many bucks were taken in Colleton County last year? And…it’s $15…$1.88/deer. That’s ridiculously inexpensive.
That’s in addition to the other fees already paid for hunting privileges. If they need revenue come out and say it. Don’t push it as a way to improve the deer heard.
Once the deer management laws are passed, you better believe the fees will get higher and higher year to year because they will be able to control what you pay. Because it is all about the money . I don’t even
buy doe tags cause when my freezer is full which is about 3 deer. I go to trophy management mode. If I don’t shot one, I don’t shot one so be it. Until next year…
Complaining about the expense of a $15.00 tag system is asinine. Anyone *****ing about that may need to examine how much they spend on beer, cigarettes, dip/chew, whiskey, junk food and scratch off tickets in a weeks time. Chances are those things waste far more of your money than 4 months of deer season’s tags will.
Mark
Pioneer 222 Sportfish Yamaha F300
Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal? I wouldn’t go so far as to call a dog filthy but they’re definitely dirty. But, a dog’s got personality. Personality goes a long way.
“Life’s tough…It’s even tougher if you’re stupid” John Wayne
Sure most of us can afford an extra 15.00, but that’s not the issue.
Y’all can sit around and pretend SCDNR is making the best decisions on your behalf, I don’t believe that nor do I have time to debate it here. I will be at the appropriate SCDNR meetings.
well said Striker
Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
quote:what's got your feathers so ruffled there striker?
Originally posted by StrikerSure most of us can afford an extra 15.00, but that’s not the issue.
Y’all can sit around and pretend SCDNR is making the best decisions on your behalf, I don’t believe that nor do I have time to debate it here. I will be at the appropriate SCDNR meetings.
Sen. Chip Campsen III and Sen. Ross Turner are sponsors of bill S 454.
quote:You mean like how the license fees keep going up every year?
Originally posted by King of the WoodsOnce the deer management laws are passed, you better believe the fees will get higher and higher year to year because they will be able to control what you pay. Because it is all about the money . I don’t even
buy doe tags cause when my freezer is full which is about 3 deer. I go to trophy management mode. If I don’t shot one, I don’t shot one so be it. Until next year…
quote:Give some examples where they have failed us in the past...
Originally posted by StrikerSure most of us can afford an extra 15.00, but that’s not the issue.
Y’all can sit around and pretend SCDNR is making the best decisions on your behalf, I don’t believe that nor do I have time to debate it here. I will be at the appropriate SCDNR meetings.
quote:
Originally posted by StrikerSure most of us can afford an extra 15.00, but that’s not the issue.
Y’all can sit around and pretend SCDNR is making the best decisions on your behalf, I don’t believe that nor do I have time to debate it here. I will be at the appropriate SCDNR meetings.
I don’t understand your stance on DNR? I can honestly say I feel we need more DNR agents and the ones we do have do an exceptional job.
Of all law enforcement agency’s DNR has taken a huge reduction in budget that has limited their ability to Police rogue hunters and fishermen. I would hate to see some of educational programs for our youth they have going be shut down.
I could agree and argue with increased fees if it was going to the Free Ice Cream crowd, but in this case any additional fees will be used for a good cause.
Striker, all the above aside, why do you feel DNR would be making a bad choice in limiting us to 8 deer? Farmers aside, do you know anyone that needs to take more than 8 deer a year? Do you know anyone that is taking more than 8 deer a year? Other than Farmers(or those helping farmers with depredation permits) I can name three people that I know that do anything they can to kill more than 8 deer a year and they are white trash in my book. I’m sure there are exceptions, but few and far between. That’s being honest.
Senator Campsen posted this on his FB page to address the wailing and nashing of teeth over S-454.
In light of some of the comments on the Deer Bill, a little clarification is in order:
-
The proposed deer bill emanated from DNR?s deer biologists after years of collecting and analyzing in-state data, evaluating laws in other states, and conducting studies such as the Savannah River Site coyote predation and fawn mortality study. Relevant factors cited by DNR biologists include habitat degradation and the transformational impact of coyotes as relatively new and highly efficient deer predators. The DNR Board then endorsed the proposal as part of its legislative agenda. Only then did I introduce the bill at their request. It is not an idea I came up with on my own, so the various ad hominem attacks upon me are largely irrelevant to the merits or demerits of this issue.
-
DNR went to great lengths to assure the proposal is revenue neutral and not a fee increase. DNR concluded in-state hunters currently spend an average of $15 to purchase three out of a possible four antlerless tags at $5 a piece. Under the proposal a hunter will get four antlerless and four buck tags for that same $15. The cost of participating in the property quota program, which will begin to issue both antlerless and buck tags, will remain the same.
-
Funds derived from this proposal will be utilized in precisely the same manner current deer tag funds are utilized. Eighty percent will be dedicated to administration of the program, deer management and research. Twenty percent will go to law enforcement. All funds will remain with DNR and not go into the state?s general fund.
-
In areas where deer overpopulation is a problem, DNR retains its traditional management tools of issuing depredation permits, and liberal quota tags. This enables them to focus upon areas where overpopulation is an issue, while not impacting areas where it is not.
-
As to accusations of government overreach and undue regulation, I direct such accusers to