Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management Deer topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee reviews rule letting processors recover fees for donated deer; requests clarifying language on unclaimed carcasses

2256733 · January 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee heard from DNR about an emergency regulation to implement a law change allowing processors to recover processing fees from donated deer. Lawmakers raised concerns about how and when an unclaimed deer should be declared donated and asked DNR to return with clarifying language.

Charles Ruth, a wildlife biologist with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, described document 53 30 as an emergency regulation to implement a legislative change that allows deer processors to recover processing fees from donated deer. "This legislation passed late last session," Ruth said, and the regulation sets out recordkeeping and allowable practices for processors.

Ruth and committee members discussed scenarios in which a hunter or landowner delivers a carcass and later fails to pick it up. Ruth said processors should post signage or paperwork stating that unclaimed carcasses will be considered donated so processors can recover fees legally: "I tell these processors you need to post a sign at your place or on your paperwork that says if you do not pick your deer up, it is considered donated." He said DNR has no formal count of processors but estimates about 125 to 150 exist in the state and that roughly 35 contacted DNR after the law change.

Members asked whether the regulation should include a specific waiting period (for example, 21 days) before a carcass is declared donated. Ruth said he would consult counsel and consider whether that timeframe could be included in regulation. Committee discussion included a suggestion to send the recommendation to the full committee with the suggestion that it be withdrawn and resubmitted with language addressing the issue; no final committee vote on amended language was recorded at this meeting.

Ruth emphasized the rule's management aim: to reduce barriers to deer processing and thereby help with population management by encouraging more deer, particularly females, to be processed. He noted hunters' limited freezer space and processing costs as factors in harvest decisions.