What Has Caused the Number of Coyotes in Georgia to Increase

Wild fauna - 2019 Deer Harvest Report

Deer Black and White Picture

The 2019 Deer Harvest Report is available for download in the PDF format.

Introduction

The white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) is the nearly pop, sought later on, economically of import, and controversial game animal in South Carolina. The 2019 Deer Hunter Survey represents the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources' (SCDNR), Wild fauna Section'southward ongoing commitment to comport pertinent research related to the state's white-tailed deer resources. The chief objectives of this survey research were to obtain valid estimates of:

the statewide deer harvest in 2019,
the harvest of deer in the constituent counties of the land,
hunting effort related to deer,
resident and nonresident hunter activities, and
weapons apply, weapons preference, and harvest rates by weapon type.

Data on hunter stance related to certain aspects of the deer resource besides as estimates of the wild squealer and coyote harvest in the state is besides presented.

Due to the importance of deer as a state resource, SCDNR believes that accurately assessing the harvest of deer, every bit well equally hunter participation in deer hunting, is key to the management of this species. Proposed changes in deer-related laws and regulations should have foundations in biology, therefore, the population dynamics associated with annual hunting mortality cannot be ignored. Similarly, when issues ascend that do not involve biological parameters, it is important to have data related to deer hunter activities afield because they too form an important footing for managing deer.

Since the inception of the Statewide Deer Research and Management Projection (Deer Project) the methods used to document the state'due south deer harvest take changed. Historically, deer harvest figures were developed using a arrangement of mandatory deer bank check stations in the eighteen county Upstate (Game Zones 1 and 2) in conjunction with reported harvests from properties enrolled in the Antlerless Deer Quota Program (ADQP) in the 28 county Coastal Plain (Game Zones 3 and four). This system yielded an actual count of harvested deer and was, therefore, an absolute minimum harvest effigy. Shortcomings in this system included deterioration of cheque station compliance in the Upstate and failure to study by ADQP cooperators in the Coastal Manifestly. Also, since the acreage enrolled in the ADQP tends to be most half of the deer habitat in the Littoral Obviously, past harvest figures have not documented deer harvests on non-quota lands (+- 3.i million acres) because there was no legal requirement to report harvested deer in the Coastal Patently. Therefore, it is suspected that historic deer harvest figures only accounted for about one-half of the full deer harvest that occurred annually in the state.

Survey Methodology

The 2019 Deer Hunter Survey represents a random mail survey that involved a unmarried postal service-out. The questionnaire for the 2019 Deer Hunter Survey was developed by Wildlife Section personnel (Figure 1). The mailing list database was synthetic by randomly selecting 30,000 known Large Game Permit holders that included 8 license types. The license types included:

Resident Sportsman's,
iii-twelvemonth Resident Sportsman'due south,
Resident Combination,
3-year Resident Combination,
Resident Inferior Sportsman'due south,
Resident Big Game Permit,
3-year Resident Big Game Permit, and
Nonresident Large Game Permit.

The number of individuals associated with each license type was based on an attempted sampling rate of approximately xv percent for licenses purchased through December of 2019. Since deer seasons statewide end on January 1 there was no demand to sample individuals that were licensed thereafter.

Data entry was completed by Priority Information, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska. Statistical analysis was conducted using Statistix 10 (Analytical Software, Tallahassee, FL).

Acknowledgments

Thanks to South Carolina deer hunters. Funding for this report, also equally all activities related to the Statewide Deer Research and Direction Project, is fabricated possible through hunters' participation in antlerless deer tag programs.

Results and Discussion

Every bit with any post survey, a portion of the attempted sample (thirty,000) was returned equally undeliverable postal service (521). Therefore, the actual attempted sample was 29,479 representing 18.3 percent of the entire population (161,300) of license holders. A full of 6,109 completed surveys were returned yielding a 20.vii percent response rate and 3.8 percentage sampling rate on the entire licensee population.

Deer Harvest

During the 2019 deer flavor it is estimated that a full of 105,201 bucks and 87,872 does were harvested for a statewide total of 193,073 deer (Table one). This represents a 1 percent subtract in harvest from 2018 (194,986) and is xl pct below the record harvest established in 2002 (319,902). After many years of apace increasing during the 1970's and 1980'south, the deer population in South Carolina exhibited relative stability betwixt 1995 and 2002. Between 2002 and 2015, however, the population trended down with the overall reduction in harvest likely attributable to a number of factors, including; habitat change, ii decades of aggressive antlerless deer harvest, and the consummate colonization of the state by coyotes and their affect on fawn survival. Since 2015 the states' deer harvest has been stable to increasing perhaps as a result of declining coyote densities.

The fall of 2019 was the third season of the "all deer" tagging system and statewide limit on antlered deer. Although the harvest has increased (12%) since 2016, this increment is primarily a result of an increase in doe harvest (18.0%) rather than an increment in the harvest of bucks (9%). Prior to the tagging program, increases in harvest were unremarkably the outcome of increases in the cadet harvest or a more equal increase in buck and doe harvest. This disproportionate harvest may be indicative of the new buck limit having the desired effect of decreasing pressure on bucks. It will likely take a few years for this to go clearer.

Harvest Per Unit Area County Rankings

Comparisons can exist made between deer harvests from the various counties in South Carolina if a harvest per unit area is established. Harvest per unit expanse standardizes the harvest amongst counties regardless of the size of private counties. One measure of harvest rate is the number of deer taken per square mile (640ac. = 1 mile^two). When considering the estimated deer habitat that is available in Due south Carolina, the deer harvest rate in 2019 was ix.1 deer per foursquare mile over the entire country (Table 2). Although the deer harvest in the country has generally declined in recent years, South Carolina remains at the top amongst southeastern states, many of which have also noted a declining trend. The acme 5 counties for harvest per unit of measurement expanse were Spartanburg (17.seven deer/mile²), Anderson (17.3 deer/mile²), Bamberg (fifteen.viii deer/mileⁱⁱ), Laurens (12.six deer/mile²), and Beaufort (12.3 deer/mile²).

Deer Harvest Rankings by Canton

Total deer harvest past county is not comparable amid counties considering counties vary in size and are, therefore, not directly comparable. Even so, it has become customary to rank the counties based on number of deer harvested (Tabular array iii). The summit 5 counties during 2019 were Orangeburg, Colleton, Williamsburg, Spartanburg, and Laurens.

Deer Harvest on Wild animals Management Areas

Deer hunting on Wildlife Direction Areas (WMAs) remains popular in Southward Carolina with approximately 60,000 licensees having a WMA Permit. Wildlife Direction Areas represent lands endemic by SCDNR, other state-owned lands enrolled in the WMA Program, United states of america Woods Service lands enrolled in the WMA Program, and private and/or corporate lands that are leased by SCDNR as part of the WMA Programme. Deer harvest figures for littoral WMAs are from check stations and are presented only for those WMA backdrop that have a deer bank check-in requirement. Deer harvest figures for upstate WMAs (Mount and Central and Western Piedmont Hunt Units) were estimated by extrapolating the county deer harvest rates (deer/mi²) to the acreage of WMA land that falls within the corresponding counties comprising the WMA. This assumes that hunters on WMA lands exhibit effort and deer harvest patterns similar to those of the full general licensee database that was surveyed. Finally, the estimated deer harvest on WMA lands is included in, non condiment to, the canton and statewide estimates found throughout this written report.

During the 2019 flavor it is estimated that 3,999 bucks, ii,978 does, and 19 deer of unknown sex were harvested for a total deer harvest on Wildlife Management Areas of 6,996 (Table 4). This figure represents a iv per centum decrease from 2018.

Hunter Opinion Regarding the Deer Population

The 2019 Deer Hunter Survey asked participants their opinion regarding the following question. Compared to past years, how would you rate the number of deer in the area that y'all hunt most often? Survey participants were given 3 choices; increasing, about the same, or decreasing. Nearly hunters (59%) indicated that the number of deer in the area they hunted near oftentimes was nearly the same as in past years (Tabular array 5). Slightly more than hunters (21%) believed that the deer population was decreasing than increasing (20%). On a scale of 1 to 3 with 1 being increasing, ii being neutral, and 3 being decreasing, the overall hateful rating of 2.0 suggests that hunters viewed the deer population about the aforementioned as by years.

Number of Deer Hunters

Fifty-fifty though all individuals receiving a survey were licensed to chase deer, only 88 percent actually hunted deer. For residents, 87 percent of sampled licensees hunted deer and for nonresidents 90 percent hunted deer. Extrapolating to the respective licensee populations yields 126,283 residents (Table half-dozen) and 14,833 nonresidents (Tabular array 7) for a total of 141,116 deer hunters statewide during 2019. This effigy represents a 3 pct decrease from the 146,044 hunters in 2018. Counties with the highest estimates for individual hunters include Orangeburg, Spartanburg, Berkeley, Laurens, and Colleton for resident hunters (Table 6) and Hampton, Allendale, Chester, Bamberg, and Fairfield for nonresidents (Table vii).

Hunting Success

For decision of hunting success only those individuals that really hunted deer were included in the analysis and similarly, success was defined equally harvesting at least i deer. Overall hunting success in 2019 was 69 percent, which should exist considered very good. Success rates for residents (69%, Table 6) were slightly higher than nonresidents (67%, , Table 7). Estimates for resident and nonresident success rates for all counties are presented in Tables six and 7.

Hunter Effort

For the purposes of this survey hunter try was measured in days with i day existence defined every bit any portion of the twenty-four hours spent afield. Resident hunters averaged fifteen days afield for a total of one,867,504 days deer hunting and nonresidents averaged thirteen days for a total of 194,616 days (Table 8).Full attempt expended deer hunting in S Carolina during 2019 was estimated at 2,083,728 days (Tabular array 8), a i per centum decrease from 2018. The number of days devoted to deer hunting in South Carolina is very significant and points not just to the availability and popularity of deer as a game species, but to the obvious economical benefits related to this important natural resource. Previous surveys conducted past the Usa Fish and Wildlife Service betoken that approximately 200 million dollars in direct retail sales are related to deer hunting in South Carolina annually.

The top five South Carolina counties for overall days of deer hunting during 2019 were Orangeburg, Colleton, Spartanburg, Anderson, and Berkeley (Table 8). Resident hunters expended the most hunting effort in Orangeburg, Spartanburg, Colleton, Anderson, and Berkeley counties. Nonresidents hunted the most in Hampton, Chester, Allendale, Jasper, and Bamberg counties and these five counties totaled 45 percent of all the nonresident deer hunting effort that took place in South Carolina in 2019.

Resident hunters who were successful at harvesting at to the lowest degree one deer averaged well-nigh twice equally many days (17 days) afield every bit unsuccessful residents (9 days) (Table 8). Similarly, successful nonresidents (15 days) averaged more than days afield when compared with unsuccessful nonresidents (8 days).

The amount of effort required to harvest a deer varied between residents and nonresidents and by the canton hunted. On the average it took less time for nonresidents to harvest a deer (9 days, Table 7) compared to residents (11 days, Tabular array 6). This may exist due to the fact that many nonresidents hunt commercially where considerable preparation is done prior to the hunter's arrival. Also, there may be less selectivity with respect to deer harvested by nonresidents. Counties requiring the least attempt to harvest a deer included Jasper, Beaufort, Allendale, Marlboro, and Barnwell and Williamsburg (tie) counties for resident hunters (Table 6). On the other mitt, nonresidents spent less time to harvest a deer in Spartanburg, Greenville, Dillon, Clarendon, and Richland counties (Table 7), all the same, none of these counties experienced what should be considered a loftier level of nonresident hunting activity.

Deer Harvest past Weapon Type and Weapons Utilization and Preference

All areas of South Carolina take long and liberal firearms seasons and the majority (81%) of deer were harvested with centerfire rifles (Table 9). Shotguns (ix.3%) and archery equipment (vi%) also contribute significantly to the overall deer harvest in the state, whereas, muzzleloaders, crossbows, and handguns combine to contribute less than 5 pct to the total harvest (Table 9).

Although rifles are used by over 90 pct of hunters, nearly 80 percent of hunters use multiple weapons during the course of the deer season (Tabular array 10, Table xi). Resident hunters announced to be more flexible than nonresidents in their use of multiple weapons and significantly more than residents apply archery equipment (22%) and shotguns (xx%) than nonresidents (12% archery and 6% shotguns) (Table 11). This finding has been consistent for many years and two points tin can likely be fabricated. Get-go, since most aspects of deer hunting (travel, accommodations, etc.) are typically more convenient for residents, they may have more than time to devote to condign comfortable or proficient with additional weapons, in this case archery equipment. 2d, shotguns are the customary weapon related to hunting deer with dogs and the argument can be made that domestic dog hunting is being practiced more past residents than nonresidents. The weapons utilization data supports this contention.

On the other hand, nonresidents (13%) used muzzleloaders more oftentimes than residents (10%). Keep in mind that muzzleloader or primitive weapons seasons on private land are only available in Game Zones i and 2 (the Upstate). It is suspected that the loftier utilization of muzzleloaders by nonresidents is related to the availability of this special season at an earlier date in South Carolina than in neighboring states. Also, the argument can be fabricated that muzzleloaders require less delivery than archery equipment and would allow nonresidents a comparatively easy method of harvesting deer during the special season. This finding has been consistent for many years.

Unlike weapons utilization, weapons preference is the unmarried weapon that a hunter prefers. Obviously, a majority (eighty%) of deer hunters prefer rifles (Table 12). Bows (11%) are the second most preferred weapon which is interesting because compared to other states, at that place are limited exclusive opportunities for bow hunters in South Carolina. Nonetheless, the number of hunters indicating that bows are their preferred weapon has increased over fourth dimension. Finally, in that location are several interesting points that can exist made near preferences for other weapons based on residency. Shotguns are preferred significantly more than past residents (6%) than nonresidents (2%) and muzzleloaders are preferred more past nonresidents (2.3%) than by residents (1%) (Tabular array 12). The caption of this situation is likely similar to that for weapons utilization in that, (1) residents exercise most of the canis familiaris hunting in the state and tend to apply shotguns, and (2) nonresidents utilise muzzleloaders to take advantage of a special flavor that is not bachelor equally early in their abode state.

Deer Harvest by Month of Flavor

The 2019 Deer Hunter Survey asked hunters to provide information on the month of kill for deer taken during the 2019 season. Although Due south Carolina is noted to have the longest firearms deer flavor in the country, the relationship betwixt flavor length and deer harvest is often misunderstood. Deer naturally increase their movements during the breeding season or rut making them more susceptible to existence seen and harvested by hunters. In contrast, outside of the convenance season deer movements are reduced, therefore the chances of hunters seeing and harvesting deer are reduced.

Deer harvest by month of flavour demonstrates this phenomenon (Figure ii). Although firearms seasons are not open up in all parts of the state in tardily Baronial and early September, relatively few deer are harvested during that time where the season is open up. On the other mitt, a disproportionately loftier number of deer are taken during October and November. October and November encompass the majority of the breeding flavor in South Carolina with over 80 percent of does conceiving during that period(Effigy 3). Ultimately, timing of the season is a more than of import factor in determining deer harvest and quality hunting than the length of the season. Although South Carolina offers early opening seasons, at that place may be negative consequences every bit it relates to deer harvest. Hunters should understand that hunting force per unit area that builds prior to the breeding flavour tin suppress daytime movements of deer during the breeding flavour when deer movements and hunter harvests should be greatest.

Wild Pig Harvest

The 2019 Deer Hunter Survey too asked hunters to provide information on their wild squealer and coyote harvesting activities. Documenting the hog harvest became customary several years ago because wild hogs are commonly taken incidental to deer hunting. Wild or feral hogs are often thought of equally "game" and there is a certain corporeality of sport associated with harvesting hogs. Wild hogs provide quality meat for the hunter and mature hogs can brand a highly sought-after "bays". Wild hogs are non native to Due south Carolina or whatever function of the North American continent. They are descendants of European domestic hogs that escaped or were released dating dorsum as far equally the early Castilian explorers. Also, closed-range or fencing requirements for livestock did not ascend until the 1900'southward and letting hogs "complimentary-range" was common prior to fencing laws. Wild hogs were historically associated with the major river flood plain systems in Coastal South Carolina. Unfortunately, recent relocations of wild hogs by hunters appear to be responsible for the species populating areas where they were not found in the past. Wild hogs directly compete with native species like deer and wild turkey for habitat and food, and hogs can do significant damage to the habitat and agricultural production through their rooting activities. Legislation passed during the 2005 session of the South Carolina General Assembly prohibits the release of hogs in the state and legislation passed in 2010 prohibits the removal of a live hog from the woods without a permit (SC Code Section 50-16-25). Hogs are non protected animals in South Carolina and hunters are allowed to harvest them throughout the year during daylight hours and at dark past registering their belongings.

During 2019 an estimated 31,508 wild hogs were incidentally harvested by deer hunters in South Carolina Tabular array 13), a xx percent decrease from 2018 (39,347 hogs). Squealer numbers and thus harvest, can vary substantially from year to twelvemonth due to bottomland flooding during the fall and winter farrowing season which can cause mortality in piglets (and some adults), also every bit, increasing vulnerability to hunters as hogs motion to college footing. The dramatic decrease in harvest in 2019 is probable related to these factors as bottomland flooding was relatively widespread due to tropical systems in 2018 and the resulting record hog harvest that year. Prove of the presence of hogs in 46 of 46 counties was made by hunter harvest activities (46 of 46 counties in 2018). Statewide, approximately i.4 hogs/mile² were harvested, nonetheless, this effigy is deceiving because hogs only inhabit a relatively small-scale portion of the land as a whole. The top 5 counties for wild hog harvest per unit area were Anderson (4.6 hogs/mileⁱⁱ), Abbeville (3.7 hogs/mile²), Allendale (3.vi hogs/mile²), Richland (iii.3 hogs/mile^two), and Hampton (iii.1 hogs/mile²).

Coyote Harvest

Different wild hogs which are treated similar game to some degree, coyotes are typically thought of equally varmints that pose a threat to native game species. Similar wild hogs, coyotes are a non-native species in S Carolina. Although a popular notion amid hunters is that SCDNR released coyotes, the agency has never released coyotes in South Carolina. The occurrence of coyotes in the state is more recent than hogs and they appear to have gotten to the state by two methods, (one) natural movements from western states and (two) illegal importation. Coyotes were beginning documented in Oconee and Pickens Counties in 1978 and were thought to exist linked to animals that were illegally imported for hunting purposes. Evidence for this includes an illegal importation instance that was fabricated and the fact that coyotes had non been documented in next counties in Georgia and N Carolina. Within a few years coyotes began to appear in the western piedmont counties of Anderson, Abbeville, McCormick, etc. indicating a southeastern expansion from the original site. In the early on 1980'southward coyotes were documented in Allendale County and were thought to be natural immigrants from Georgia since they had previously been documented in the adjacent Georgia counties. Coyotes from this source apparently populated to the Northeast until they encountered the Santee Cooper Lakes. In the belatedly 1980'southward coyotes were documented in the Pee Dee Region, again associated with illegal imports. In any result, past the mid-1990's coyotes had been documented in all Southward Carolina counties.

Sportsmen often vox business concern over the presence of coyotes and the potential impact they have on game species such as deer. Though coyotes are i of the most adaptable animals, they are not designed to prey on big game. The coyote'southward nutrition is chiefly composed of minor mammals (rats and mice), insects, and a multifariousness of vegetable thing including fruits. On the other paw, coyotes will have deer fawns and deer that are ill or injured. SCDNR completed a major written report with researchers at the Savannah River Site investigating the affects coyotes are having on the survival of deer fawns. Cumulative data through the first iii years of the report indicated approximately seventy percent full fawn bloodshed with coyotes being responsible for approximately eighty percent of these mortalities. If these findings even moderately represent a statewide situation, this "new mortality factor" is clearly involved in the reduction in deer numbers. This is especially true when combined with extremely liberal deer harvests that take been the norm in South Carolina.

The last 3 years of the study were for the purpose of determining if reducing coyote density through trapping increases fawn survival. It seems logical that if coyotes are preying on fawns, and then significantly reducing coyote densities should increase fawn survival. Over the course of the 3-year coyote "control" stage, 474 coyotes were trapped/killed on the study areas. Overall, results showed only small increases in fawn survival following these efforts with an overall average of well-nigh 35 percentage increase in survival. As well, trapping seemed to help in some years but accept lilliputian consequence on predation in others. This "year" effect may take something to practice with the availability of coyote food sources that may change in abundance annually. Given these results and the difficulty and high cost of coyote control, it seems apparent that making adjustments to how we manage deer, peculiarly female deer, is more important now than prior to the colonization of the state by coyotes.

Coyotes are not protected animals in South Carolina and hunters are immune to harvest them throughout the yr during daylight hours and at dark by registering their property. During 2019 information technology is estimated that approximately twenty,674 coyotes were harvested incidental to deer hunting in Due south Carolina (Table xiii), a decrease of nine percent from 2018 (22,731 coyotes). As in past years, there was evidence of coyotes beingness harvested in all counties. Although the number of coyotes killed by deer hunters increased exponentially from the late 1990's to 2014 pointing to the expansion of this species in South Carolina, the harvest has decreased 34 percent in recent years likely indicating a moderation in coyote populations across the state which is typical of a species following colonization. Statewide approximately 1.0 coyotes/mile2 were harvested and the top 5 counties for coyote harvest per unit of measurement area included Spartanburg (3.3 coyotes/mile²), Laurens (2.2 coyotes/mile²), Anderson (ii.0 coyotes/mile²), Chester (i.7 coyotes/mile²), and Calhoun (one.half dozen coyotes/mile²).

Supplementary Information

The following section is not related to the 2019 Deer Hunter Survey but is offered equally information relevant to the state'southward deer population.

Based on preliminary information provided by the South Carolina Department of Public Safety (SCDPS) the number of reported deer-vehicle collisions for 2019 was 3,085 (Table 14). Since reporting of deer vehicle collisions is contingent upon notification of some police force enforcement bureau and then SCDPS, this figure should be considered a minimum. Also, the reader should behave in listen that reporting criteria accept changed over fourth dimension.

Average body weights and antler characteristic of deer vary amongst the constituent counties in Southward Carolina and are dependent on deer density and bachelor nutrition (Tables 15 and 16). Statewide averages for male person deer indicate that 1.5 year old bucks average about 107 lbs. and 3.6 antler points while bucks 2.5 years erstwhile and older average about 138 lbs. and 6.v antler points. Yearling (1.v years erstwhile) females boilerplate approximately 88 lbs. while does 2.5 years old and older average nearly 101 lbs. This information is based on sampling completed betwixt 1987 and 1994.

The history of the deer population and harvest in S Carolina demonstrates a trend typical of a species that initially expands into available habitat, stabilizes, and begins to decline as habitat changes (Figures iv and 5). It is important to recognize that habitat is the primary factor controlling deer density in S Carolina, though regulated harvest is important as well. Go along in listen that between 1750 and 1900 the deer population in South Carolina experienced a tremendous pass up equally it did in most of North America. Although unrestricted subsistence and commercial harvest of deer was important in the decline, major changes in habitat related to immigration of land for agriculture was the controlling factor.

By 1900 deer numbers in the State were very low, possibly twenty,000. Yet, in the 1920'southward, pregnant drought and the cotton boll weevil had devastating consequences for farming. With the pass up in farming, reforestation of the land began and was largely consummate by the 1970'due south. Timber harvest activities that followed into and throughout the 1980's created vast areas of early successional habitat that allowed for a dramatic increase in the State'due south deer population. South Carolina's deer population peaked in the mid to belatedly 1990'southward at just over i,000,000 deer.

Over time, deer hunters gained a improve understanding of the relationship betwixt deer numbers, habitat, and deer quality leading to more aggressive female harvests in many parts of the state. This increased emphasis on harvesting female deer as a means to control deer densities has played a role in the stabilization and ultimate reduction in the State'south deer population. Habitat is also very important. Keep in mind that the same forest management activities that stimulated the growth in Due south Carolina's deer population in the 1980s have resulted in considerable acreage currently being in even-aged stands that are greater than 15 years old. This habitat blazon simply does not back up deer densities at the same level as habitat in early stages of ecological succession. As a event, a combination of habitat alter, loftier deer harvests, and the institution of coyotes has caused the deer population to trend down since 2000. Currently the statewide population is estimated at about 700,000 deer.

The tables and graphs referred to in this written report are available for download in the PDF format.

johnsonsqualoodding93.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/deer/2019DeerHarvestReport.html