Why do Baiting Laws differ between the Piedmont and Coastal Plain of South Carolina?
Conclusion
Wildlife Section staff recognizes that hunting deer over bait has taken place in the Coastal Plain for a number of years. However, staff also understands that this situation exists only as a result of the history of deer hunting in that region, the fact that there has been a relatively recent change from dog hunting to still hunting, and the fact that the baiting issue has never been addressed in state law. Now, baiting is the norm rather than the exception in the Coastal Plain yet state law does not prescribe the practice in that region.
Although some hunters and legislators believe that baiting increases hunter success and deer harvest rates, data collected over the last several years indicate just the opposite, i.e. in the Piedmont where baiting is prohibited, hunters kill more deer and spend less time doing it than in the Coastal Plain where baiting is the norm. The most significant concern of SCDNR Wildlife Section staff is the likelihood that decreased hunter efficiency and deer harvest rates would occur over time if the prohibition on baiting were eliminated in the Piedmont.
SCDNR Wildlife Section
Deer/Wild Turkey Committee Members
Richard Morton – Region 1
Sam Stokes, Jr. – Region 2
Haven Barnhill – Region 3
Jay Cantrell – Region 4
Billy Dukes – Statewide Projects, Small Game
Charles Ruth - Statewide Projects, Deer/Wild Turkey
Endnotes
- See Ruth (1990).
- See Kammermeyer and Thackston (1995), Ruth (1990), Simmons and Ruth (1990).
- See Jacobson and Darrow (1992), Kammermeyer and Marchinton (1977), Synatzke (1981).
- See Darrow (1993), Jacobson and Darrow (1992), Kammermeyer and Marchinton (1977), Georgia DNR (1992), Synatzke (1981).
- See Ozoga and Verme (1982).
- See Schmitt et al. (1977), Williamson (2000).
- See Doenier et al. (1997), Georgia DNR (1992), Michigan DNR (1993), Ozoga and Verme (1992).
- See Brown (2001), Cheatum (1956), Michigan DNR (1993), Williamson (2000).
- In 1993 SCDNR was asked by the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study to collect samples of corn that were being used as bait in coastal counties of South Carolina. Laboratory results of this effort indicated that 15 of 21 samples were positive and aflatoxin levels ranged from trace amounts to 266 parts per billion (ppb). Twenty ppb is the action level for corn in interstate commerce. Ten (approximately 50%) of the samples contained aflatoxin levels in access of 20 ppb.
- See Davidson and Nettles (1997), Davis (1998)
- See Cooper and Ginnett (2000)
- SCDNR has received numerous contacts form coastal plain landowners or lessees voicing concern over the issue of individuals using bait on small properties adjacent to or within properties (in holdings) that have a history of traditional deer management. Similarly, these complaints typically involve large quantities of bait and deer harvests that would be considered exceptionally high considering the locality, habitat type, and size of the area in question. See Georgia DNR (1992)
- SCDNR Law Enforcement Division has documented numerous incidences in which deer bait has resulted in cases being made, warnings being issued, or notification of illegal status related to properties where dove or turkey hunts were being conducted or considered. Also, both Wildlife Management and Law Enforcement personnel are frequently asked if hunting of certain species can take place in the vicinity of deer bait. This fact places personnel and constituents in an awkward position with respect to the issue of bait and species that are clearly not legal to hunt over bait.
- A 1998 SCDNR Deer Hunter Survey asked the question “Do you favor or oppose the practice of hunting deer over bait” to a randomly selected survey of approximately 12,000 statewide deer hunting license type holders. Response rate for the survey was approximately 40 percent. Based on hunters who most frequently hunted in piedmont counties, this survey indicated that piedmont hunters had a significantly different (alpha = 0.05, X2 = 390.8) opinion related to the appropriateness of hunting deer over bait.
- See Peyton (1998)
- See Georgia DNR (1992)
- See Duda et al. (1998), Georgia DNR (1992)
- SCDNR harvest data voluntarily submitted by hunters clearly show that the top counties in South Carolina for deer harvest per square mile are located in the Piedmont of the state. See Ruth (1990), Simmons and Ruth (1990).
- See Ruth and Shipes (2005)
References
Brown, R.D. 2001. The case against supplemental feeding of white-tailed deer. Proceedings of the
24th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Deer Study Group. St. Louis, MO. 59pp.
Cheatum, E.L. 1956. Too many deer. New York State Conservationist 10(6): 2-4.
Cooper, S. M. and T. F. Ginnettt. 2000. Potential effects of supplemental feeding of deer on nest
predation. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28(3):660-666.
Darrow, D.A. 1993. Effects of baiting on deer movement and activity. Master of Science
Thesis. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS. 107 pp.
Davidson W.R. and V. F. Nettles. 1997. Field manual of wildlife Diseases in the Southeastern
United States. Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study. College of Veterinary Medicine, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 417pp.
Doenier, P.B., G.D. DelGiudice, and M.R. Riggs. 1997. Effects of winter supplemental feeding
on browse consumption by white-tailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25(2):235-243.
Duda, M.D., S.J. Bissell, and K.C. Young. 1998. Wildlife and the American Mind: Public
opinion on and attitudes toward fish and wildlife management. Responsive Management, Harrisburg, VA. 804 pp.
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources. 1992. Position Statement: Georgia Game and Fish
Division: Hunting Deer Over Bait. Unpublished document. GA Dept. Natural Res. Social Circle, GA 3 pp.
Jacobson, H.A. and D.A. Darrow. 1992. Effects of baiting on deer movements and activity.
15th Annual Southeast Deer Study Group Meeting 15:23.
Kammermeyer, K.E. and R.L. Marchinton: 1977. Seasonal change in circadian activity of radio
monitored deer. J.Wildl. Manage. 41(2): 315-317
Kammermeyer, K.E. and R.E. Thackston. 1995. Habitat management and supplemental
feeding. Pages 129-154. In Quality Whitetails. Editors K.V. Miller and R.L. Marchinton. Stackpole Books. Mechanicburg, PA.
Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources. 1993. Deer and bear baiting: biological issues. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, unpublished report. 17 pp.
Ozoga, J.J., and L.J. Verme. 1982. Physical and reproductive characteristics of a
supplementally fed white-tailed deer her. JK. Wildl. Manage. 46(2): 281-301.
Peyton, R.B. 1998. Defining management issues: dogs, hunting and society. Trans. N.Am.
Wild. And Naur. Resour. Conf. 63:544-555.
Ruth, C.R., Jr. 1990. A comparison of three white-tailed deer management strategies in the
coastal lain of South Carolina. M.S. Thesis, Clemson Univ., Clemson, S.C. 63pp
Ruth, C.R., Jr. and Derrell A. Shipes. 2005. Potential negative effects on regional white-tailed deer harvest rates in South Carolina: A state with conflicting baiting laws. Annu. Meet. Southeast Deer Study Group 28:18.
Schmitt, S.M., S.D. Fitzgerald, T.M. Cooley, C.S. Bruning-Fann, L. Sullivan, D. Berry, T.
Carlson, R.B. Minnus, J.B. Payeur, and J. Sikarskie. 1997. Bovine tuberculosis in free-ranging white-tailed deer from Michigan J. Wildl. Diseases. 33(4):749-758.
Simmons, H.L., and C.R. Ruth. 1990. White-tailed deer management at the Cedar Knoll Club.
Annu. Meet. Southeast Deer Study Group 13:8.
Synatzke, D.R. 1981. Effects of baiting on white-tailed deer hunting success. Job 37 W-109
R4. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Wildlife Division, Austin, TX. 18pp.
Williamson, S.J., 2000. Feeding wildlife…just say no! Wildlife Management Institute,
Washington, D.C. 34pp