Survey respondents reported a definite increase in the population of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in South Carolina. Almost 73% of the producers from a random sample indicated that deer populations have increased over the five year period preceding 1991. With a higher deer population, crop damage from deer became more prevalent, and 72% of the producers indicated having some level of damage. The producers in the sample had mixed feelings about the damage their crops received with 70% indicating that the damage was either negligible or was tolerable in exchange for having deer around. In South Carolina the increasing deer population and problem with crop damage is regional in nature, with certain regions of the state being affected more than others. About one-third of the agricultural producers in South Carolina reflected an attitude that they were substantially negatively affected by deer damage to crops

Shipes, Derrell

Smathers, Webb M., Jr.

Stratton, Gary R.

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 6 - Sixth Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference (1993) Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences September 1993 LANDOWNERS PERCEPTIONS OF CROP DAMAGE FROM WHITE-TAILED DEER IN SOUTH CAROLINA Webb M. Smathers Jr. Clemson University Gary R. Stratton Clemson University Derrell Shipes South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc6  Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons Smathers, Webb M. Jr.; Stratton, Gary R.; and Shipes, Derrell, "LANDOWNERS PERCEPTIONS OF CROP DAMAGE FROM WHITE-TAILED DEER IN SOUTH CAROLINA" (1993). 6 - Sixth Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference (1993). 32. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc6/32 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in 6 - Sixth Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference (1993) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. LANDOWNERS PERCEPTIONS OF CROP DAMAGE FROM WHITE-TAILED DEER INSOUTH CAROLINAWEBB M. SMATHERS JR. and GARY R. STRATTON, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, South CarolinaAgricultural Experiment Station, Clemson UniversityDERRELL SHIPES, Deer Project Leader, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources DepartmentABSTRACT: Survey respondents reported a definite increase in the population of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) inSouth Carolina. Almost 73% of the producers from a random sample indicated that deer populations have increased over the fiveyear period preceding 1991. With a higher deer population, crop damage from deer became more prevalent, and 72% of theproducers indicated having some level of damage. The producers in the sample had mixed feelings about the damage their cropsreceived with 70% indicating that the damage was either negligible or was tolerable in exchange for having deer around. In SouthCarolina the increasing deer population and problem with crop damage is regional in nature, with certain regions of the state beingaffected more than others. About one-third of the agricultural producers in South Carolina reflected an attitude that they weresubstantially negatively affected by deer damage to crops.Proc. East. Wild. Damage Control Conf. 6:160-165. 1995.“To a deer, a soybean field looks like a big dish of chocolateyogurt.”Jim Palmer, Soybean SpecialistClemson UniversityThe above quote by Dr. Jim Palmer of ClemsonUniversity’s Extension Service may sound humorous to many,however to agricultural producers in South Carolina who haveexperienced crop damage from white-tailed deer (Odocoileusvirginianus) the quote describes a serious problem.Agricultural and wildlife professionals across the nation agreethat agricultural damage caused by wildlife, including deer,has been increasing nationwide over the past 30 years(Conover and Decker 1991).In South Carolina, it is estimated that there is a substantialloss in revenue to agricultural producers from deer damagingcrops. The increasing deer depredation in South Carolina isdue in large part to increasing deer populations because ofthe inadequate harvest of doe deer. However, there is anotherfactor — the changing land use patterns which have increasedhuman activity in prime deer habitat. Timber harvesting andthe effects of Hurricane Hugo also have added to the deerproblem, the difficulty of harvest, and with canopy closureadded pressure for deer to encroach on agricultural lands.These large scale and wide spread alterations of deer habitatcause deer to venture into populous areas or areas ofagricultural production where they are naturally attracted inorder to locate food.In order to address the issue of crop damage caused bydeer, Clemson University, in cooperation with the SouthCarolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department(SCWMRD), conducted a survey of South Carolinaagricultural producers to determine the extent of crop damage.The goal of this project was to determine the extent of damageand develop policy actions which can be taken by theSCWMRD, landowners, and sportsmen, in order to moderatethe effects of crop damage in the future. All groups involved,the SCWMRD, the landowner, and the sportsmen, must worktogether in order to better manage the deer population in SouthCarolina.METHODSAgricultural producers were asked to help in an effort todetermine the level of crop damage caused by deer, andascertain where this damage was occurring in South Carolina.A survey was conducted in 1992 which inquired about 1991crop damage and deer population trends. Two samples, arandom sample and a non-random sample of South Carolinaagricultural producers were sent questionnaires. The randomsample consisted of 3,018 persons selected from a list of 6,036producers, all of which either owned or operated one hundredacres or more (list provided by the Agricultural Stabilizationand Conservation Service).The non-random sample, made up of 336 producers, wastermed the deer “permit” sample and consisted of producerswho had petitioned and received shoot-to-kill permit(s) fordeer. A shoot-to-kill permit allowed the agricultural producerto destroy a certain number of deer on their affected property.The number of deer a producer was allowed to destroydepended upon the intensity of crop damage experienced. InSouth Carolina law enforcement officers with SCWMRD arethe authorized issuing agents.The questionnaire contained some of the characteristicsfound in surveys previously conducted in Arkansas,Wisconsin, and Tennessee with additions specific to SouthCarolina (Wigley et al. 1989, Spencer et al. 1984, M. King,University of Tennessee, pers. commun.). The total designmethod (TDM) of mail questionnaire construction discussedin Dillman (1978) was used throughout the survey process.From the random sample there were 1,153 questionnairesreturned, a response rate of approximately 38% (1,153/3,018).The permit sample had an even better response rate with 173returned for a rate of approximately 51% (173/336).RESULTSDeer seemed to cause at least some damage to all sectorsof South Carolina agriculture, from row crops to fruit trees.However, soybeans, tobacco, and cotton were the crops whichsustained the most severe reported damage. The soybeanproducers responding to the questionnaire reported that 70%of their soybean acreage had some level of damage, tobaccoproducers reported 49% of acreage with some level of damage,and the cotton producers indicated having 41% of acreagedamaged at some level. The explanation for this damage maycome from the deer population trend. There was a definiteincrease in the population trend of deer in South Carolinawith almost 73% of the producers (random sample) indicatingthat in their opinion deer populations have increased over thepast five years (Fig. 1). The remaining producers eitherindicated a decrease in population, a status quo, or they didnot know.Crop damage from deer varied throughout the state fromnone to severe. Almost 72% of the producers (random sample)indicated having some level of crop damage (Fig. 2). However,there were 310(28.1%) respondents indicating that they hadno damage.The producers in the random sample had mixed feelingsabout the damage their crops received with 70% (n=768)indicating that the damage was either negligible or wastolerable in exchange for having deer around. The remainderof the respondents felt that the damage was unreasonable (Fig.3). As might be expected a majority of the permit sampleindicated that the amount of damage was unreasonable. Somelevel of crop damage from deer occurred on at least somesegment of 30 percent of the respondents agricultural land.Producers responses to damage to their crops (deterrents)was mixed. Some were attempting to do nothing while otherswere using fences and scare devices. The most commoncontrol measure reported was shoot-to-kill permits, howevera majority (80.0%) of those reporting crop damage (in therandom sample) did not apply for a shoot-to-kill permit. Inthe random sample 113 (20.0%) applied while 488 (80.0%)did not.Producers from both samples had mixed feelings aboutthe effectiveness of shoot-to-kill permits. From the randomsample 54.2% of those applying for shoot-to-kill permits saidthey were effective while 45.8% said they were not (N=601).In the permit sample 554% indicated that the permits wereeffective while 54 (44.6%) said they were not (Fig. 4).There were other non-lethal methods of controlling deerattempted to alleviate some of the crop damage from deer,such as chemical repellents, fence construction, and devicesto scare deer. From the random sample, 171 (28.7%) of theproducers used some non-harvesting method either in placeof, or in conjunction with, harvesting deer, while 424 (71.3%)did not. Producers were then asked to indicate whether thesemethods were useful. Twenty producers responded with fenceconstruction being the most beneficial and scare devices andchemical repellents being second and third in importance,respectively.Fig. 1. Deer population trends.In the permit sample 116 (73.4%) took other steps tocontrol crop damage, while 42 (26.6%) did not. Five of theproducers who took these steps indicated that fenceconstruction and scare devices were the most beneficial. Ofthe control methods reported, there was a clear preference forlethal methods over non-lethal, and the lethal methods werereported to be far more effective.Another control method indicated was a modification inthe farm plan, for example, switching from growing soybeansto some other crop(s) because of crop damage to soybeans. Inthe random sample there were 265 (34.6%) who indicated afarm modification, while 500 (65.4%) did not. In the permitsample 93 (61.2%) said they modified their farm plan becauseof crop damage from deer, while 59 (38.8%) did not. Inconversations with respondents, many of the farm planmodifications removed highly susceptible crops from smallfields, and especially those small fields bordered by woods orcut over areas. Reduced soybean acreage in modified farmplans was due to crop damage, and reduced soybean priceswere received at the farm gate.There was a sharp contrast in feelings toward deerbetween the random and permit sample (Fig. 5). In the randomsample, approximately 52% either enjoyed seeing deer aroundor could accept the current level damage, 26% enjoyed a fewdeer but worried about crop damage, 14% regarded deer as anuisance, and 8% had no particular feeling concerning deer.In the permit sample, over 81% of the producers either worriedabout crop damage or regarded deer as a nuisance. Clearly,deer are enjoyed by many of the respondents; however, in acompetitive industry with often small profit margins, abouthalf were worried about damage from deer.DEMOGRAPHIC DATAThe average non-farm income for the random sample was$38,419.63, and the farm income for the random sample was$97,829.79. The average nonfarm income for the permitsample was $26,518.52, and the farm income for the permitsample was $82,207.03.Both samples showed post-high school educations. Therandom sample’s average education level was 13.6 years, whilethe average education level of the permit sample was 12.6years.The vast majority of the respondents in both sample wasmale. In the random sample 1009 (92.1%) males and 87 (7.9%)females responded. In the permit sample 157 (95.2%) malesand 8 (4.8%) females responded.Fig. 2. Crop damage from deer.Fig. 3. Amount of deer damage to crops caused by deer.Fig. 4. Effectiveness of shoot-to-kill permits.Fig. 5. Feelings regarding present deer population.CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONSIn South Carolina increasing deer populations andproblems with crop damage are regional in nature, with certainregions of the state being affected more than others. Bothincreasing deer populations and crop damage caused fromthose deer seems to be of a higher magnitude in the “lowCountry” near the coast of South Carolina and in the areasaffected by Hurricane Hugo. These two areas of South Carolinaare also where the largest number of row crop farms arelocated.Generally speaking, about one-third of the agriculturalproducers in South Carolina reflect the attitude they aresubstantially negatively affected by deer damage to crops.These areas of damage are expanding with the increasing sireof the deer herd, especially in the areas with significant habitatalteration caused by Hurricane Hugo, as well as in areas wherelarge areas of wood products have been harvested. Increaseddoe harvest by sportsmen and a changing attitude bylandowners toward hunters will be required to alleviate thedamage from white-tailed deer in South Carolina. landownersand sportsmen alike must consider themselves as wildlifemanagers and not just economic or recreational users ofwildlife, especially as harvest decisions are made and carriedout as related to white-tailed deer.LITERATURE CITEDConover, M.R. and D.J. Decker. 1991. “Wildlife Damage toCrops: Perceptions of Agricultural and WildlifeProfessionals in 1957 and 1987.” Wildlife SocietyBulletin. 19:46-52.Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys-the totaldesign method. Wiley. New York, NY.Spencer, C.D., J. Davies, J.S. Rowe, and T. Vesey. October1984. “Wisconsin Deer Population and Damage Survey.”Wisconsin Agriculture Reporting Service, Madison,Wisconsin.Wigley, B. T. Jr., R.A. Kluender, and R. A. Pierce. 1989.“Landowner Reports of Deer Damage in the ArkansasCoastal Plain.” Proceedings Annual ConferenceSoutheastern Association Fish and Wildlife Agencies 43:306312.

LANDOWNERS PERCEPTIONS OF CROP DAMAGE FROM WHITE-TAILED DEER IN SOUTH CAROLINA

DigitalCommons@USU

LANDOWNERS PERCEPTIONS OF CROP DAMAGE FROM WHITE-TAILED DEER IN SOUTH CAROLINA WEBB M . SMATHERS JR. and GARY R. STRATTON , Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics , South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Clemson University DERRELL SHIPES , Deer Project Leader , South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department ABSTRACT : Survey respondents reported a definite increase in the population of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in South Carolina. Almost 73 % of the producers from a random sample indicated that deer populations have increased over the five year period preceding 1991. With a higher deer population, crop damage from deer became more prevalent , and 72 % of the producers indicated having some level of damage. The producers in the sample had mixed feelings about the damage their crops received with 70% indicating that the damage was either negligible or was tolerable in exchange for having deer around. In South Carolina the i:icreasing deer population and problem with crop damage is regional in nature, with certain regions of the state being affected more than others . About one-third of the agricultural producers in South Carolina reflected an attitude that they were substantially negatively affected by deer damage to crops. "To a deer , a soybean field looks like a big dish of chocolate yogurt." Jim Palmer , Soybean Specialist Clemson University The above quote by Dr. Jim Palmer of Clemson University's Extension Service may sound humorous to many , however to agricultural producers in South Carolina who have experienced crop damage from white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) the quote describes a serious problem . Agricultural and wildlife professionals across the nation agree that agricultural damage caused by wildlife , including deer, has been increasing nationwide over the past 30 years (Conover and Decker 1991) . In South Carolina, it is estimated that there is a substantial Joss in revenue to agricultural producers from deer damaging crops. The increasing deer depredation in South Carolina is due in large part to increasing deer populations because of the inadequate harvest of doe deer. However , there is another factor -- the changing land use patterns which have increased human activity in prime deer habitat. Timber harvesting and the effects of Hurricane Hugo also have added to the deer problem, the difficulty of harvest , and with canopy closure added pressure for deer to encroach on agricultural lands . These large scale and wide spread alterations of deer habitat cause deer to venture into populous areas or areas of agricultural production where they are naturally attracted in order to locate food. Proc. East. Wild . Damage Control Conf. 6:160-165. 1995 . 160 In order to address the issue of crop damage caused by deer , Clemson University, in cooperation with the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department (SCWMRD), conducted a survey of South Carolina agricultural producers to determine the extent of crop damage. The goal of this project was to determine the extent of damage and develop policy actions which can be taken by the SCWMRD , landowners , and sportsmen , in order to moderate the effects of crop damage in the future . All groups involved , the SCWMRD , the landowner , and the sportsmen , must work together in order to better manage the deer population in South Carolina . METHODS Agricultural producers were asked to help in an effort to determine the level of crop damage caused by deer , and ascertain where this damage was occurring in South Carolina . A survey was conducted in 1992 which inquired about 1991 crop damage and deer population trends. Two samples , a random sample and a non-random sample of South Carolina agricultural producers were sent questionnaires . The random sample consisted of 3,018 persons selected from a list of 6 ,036 producers, all of which either owned or operated one hundred acres or more (list provided by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service). The non-random sample, made up of 336 producers, was termed the deer "permit " sample and consisted of producers who had petitioned and received shoot-to-kill permit(s) for deer. A shoot-to-kill permit allowed the agricultural producer to destroy a certain number of deer on their affected property. The number of deer a producer was allowed to destroy depended upon the intensity of crop damage experienced. In South Carolina law enforcement officers with SCWMRD are the authorized issuing agents. The questionnaire contained some of the characteristics found in surveys previously conducted in Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Tennessee with additions specific to South Carolina (Wigley et al. 1989, Spencer et al. 1984, M. King, University of Tennessee, pers. commun.). The total design method (TDM) of mail questionnaire construction discussed in Dillman (1978) was used throughout the survey process . From the random sample there were 1,153 questionnaires returned, a response rate of approximately 38% (1, 153/3 ,018). The permit sample More Deer 72.7 had an even better response rate with 173 returned for a rate of approximately 51 % (173/336) . RESULTS Deer seemed to cause at least some damage to all sectors of South Carolina agriculture, from row crops to fruit trees . However , soybeans, tobacco, and cotton were the crops which sustained the most severe reported damage . The soybean producers responding to the questionnaire reported that 70% of their soybean acreage had some level of damage, tobacco producers reported 49 % of acreage with some level of damage, and the cotton producers indicated having 41 % of acreage damaged at some level. The explanation for this damage may come from the deer population trend. There was a definite increase in the population trend of deer in South Carolina with almost 73 % of the producers (random sample) indicating that in their opinion deer populations have increased over the past five years (Fig. 1). The remaining producers either indicated a decrease in population, a status quo, or they did not know. Do not Know 7 Fewer Deer 3.2 About the Same 17.1 Smathers, Stratton , and Shipes 1993 (Question 6) Fig. 1. Deer population trends. 161 Crop damage from deer varied throughout the state from none to severe. Almost 72 % of the producers (random sample) indicated having some level of crop damage (Fig . 2). However, there were 310 (28.1 %) respondents indicating that they had no damage. The producers in the random sample had mixed feelings about the damage their crops received with 70% (n=768) indicating that the damage was either negligible or was tolerable in exchange for having deer around . The remainder of the respondents felt that the damage was unreasonable (Fig. 3). As might be expected a majority of the permit sample indicated that the amount of damage was unreasonable. Some level of crop damage from deer occurred on at least some segment of 30 percent of the respondents agricultural land. Producers responses to damage to their crops (deterrents) was mixed. Some were attempting to do nothing while others were using fences and scare devices. The most common control measure reported was shoot-to-kill permits, however a majority (80.0%) of those reporting crop damage (in the random sample) did not apply for a shoot-to-kill permit. In the random sample 113 (20 .0%) applied while 488 (80.0%) did not. Producers from both samples had mixed feelings about the effectiveness of shoot-to-kill permits . From the random sample 54.2% of those applying for shoot-to-kill permits said they were effective while 45 .8 % said they were not (N =601) . In the permit sample 55.4% indicated that the permits were effective while 54 (44.6%) said they were not (Fig . 4) . There were other non-lethal methods of controlling deer attempted to alleviate some of the crop damage from deer, such as chemical repellents , fence construction , and devices to scare deer . From the random sample, 171 (28.7%) of the producers used some non-harvesting method either in place of , or in conjunction with, harvesting deer, while 424 (71.3 % ) did not . Producers were then asked to indicate whether these methods were useful. Twenty producers responded with fence construction being the most beneficial and scare devices and chemical repellents being second and third in importance, respectively . In the permit sample 116 (73.4%) took other steps to control crop damage, while 42 (26.6%) did not. 162 Five of the producers who took these steps indicated that fence construction and scare devices were the most beneficial. Of the control methods reported, there was a clear preference for lethal methods over non-lethal , and the lethal methods were reported to be far more effective . Another control method indicated was a modification in the farm plan, for example , switching from growing soybeans to some other crop(s) because of crop damage to soybeans. In the random sample there were 265 (34.6%) who indicated a farm modification , while 500 (65.4%) did not. In the permit sample 93 (61.2%) said they modified their farm plan because of crop damage from deer, while 59 (38 .8%) did not. In conversations with respondents , many of the farm plan modifications removed highly susceptible crops from small fields, and especially those small fields bordered by woods or cut over areas. Reduced soybean acreage in modified farm plans was due to crop damage, and reduced soybean prices were received at the farm gate. There was a sharp contrast in feelings toward deer between the random and permit sample (Fig. 5) . In the random sample, approximately 52 % either enjoyed seeing deer around or could accept the current level damage, 26% enjoyed a few deer but worried about crop damage, 14% regarded deer as a nuisance, and 8 % had no particular feeling concerning deer. In the permit sample, over 81 % of the producers either worried about crop damage or regarded deer as a nuisance. Clearly, deer are enjoyed by many of the respondents ; however , in a competitive industry with often small profit margins , about half were worried about damage from deer . DEMOGRAPHIC DATA The average non-fa::-m income for the random sample was $38,419.63 , and the farm income for the random sample was $97,829.79. The average non-farm income for the permit sample was $26,518.52 , and the farm income for the permit sample was $82 ,207.03. Both samples showed post-high school educations. The random sample's average education Light 35 .8 Random Sample Substantial 9.4 Severe 5.2 Moderate 21.4 No Damage 28.1 Smathers , Stratton , and Shipes 1993 (Question 7) Fig . 2. Crop damage from deer. negligible tolerable unreasonable Response ■ Random (n=768) tJ Permit (n=165) Smathers, Stratton, and Shipes 1993 (Question 10) Fig. 3. Amount of deer damage to crops caused by deer. 163 60.--------------------, so ························ 10 0 no yes Response ■ Random (n=72) EJ Permit (n=121) Smathers, Stratton, and Shipes 1993 (Question 110 Fig. 4. Effectiveness of shoot-to-kill permits. like enjoy worry nusiance none Response ■ Random (n= 1119) EZI Permit (n= 167) Smathers, Stratton, and Shipes 1993 (Question 19) Fig . 5 . Feelings regarding present deer population . 164 level was 13.6 years, while the average education level of the permit sample was 12.6 years. The vast majority of the respondents in both sample was male. In the random sample 1009 (92.1 % ) males and 87 (7.9%) females responded. In the permit sample 157 (95.2%) males and 8 (4.8%) females responded. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS In South Carolina increasing deer populations and problems with crop damage are regional in nature, with certain regions of the state being affected more than others. Both increasing deer populations and crop damage caused from those deer seems to be of a higher magnitude in the "Low Country" near the coast of South Carolina and in the areas affected by Hurricane Hugo. These two areas of South Carolina are also where the largest number of row crop farms are located. Generally speaking, about one-third of the agricultural producers in South Carolina reflect the attitude they are substantially negatively affected by deer damage to crops. These areas of damage are expanding with the increasing size of the deer herd, especially in the areas with significant habitat alteration caused by Hurricane Hugo, as well as in areas where large areas of wood products have been 165 harvested. Increased doe harvest by sportsmen and a changing attitude by landowners toward hunters will be required to alleviate the damage from white-tailed deer in South Carolina. Landowners and sportsmen alike must consider themselves as wildlife managers and not just economic or recreational users of wildlife, especially as harvest decisions are made and carried out as related to white-tailed deer. LITERATURE CITED Conover, M.R. and D.J. Decker. 1991. "Wildlife Damage to Crops: Perceptions of Agricultural and Wildlife Professionals in 1957 and 1987." Wildlife Society Bulletin. 19:46-52. Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys-the total design method. Wiley. New York, NY. Spencer, C.D . , J. Davies, J.S . Rowe, and T. Vesey. October 1984. "Wisconsin Deer Population and Damage Survey." Wisconsin Agriculture Reporting Service, Madison, Wisconsin. Wigley, B. T. Jr., R.A. Kluender, and R. A. Pierce. 1989. "Landowner Reports of Deer Damage in the Arkansas Coastal Plain." Proceedings Annual Conference Southeastern Association Fish and Wildlife Agencies 43: 306-312. 

Landowners Perceptions of Crop Damage from White-Tailed Deer in South Carolina

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
6 - Sixth Eastern Wildlife Damage Control 
Conference (1993) Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences 
September 1993 
LANDOWNERS PERCEPTIONS OF CROP DAMAGE FROM WHITE-
TAILED DEER IN SOUTH CAROLINA 
Webb M. Smathers Jr. 
Clemson University 
Gary R. Stratton 
Clemson University 
Derrell Shipes 
South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc6 
 Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons 
Smathers, Webb M. Jr.; Stratton, Gary R.; and Shipes, Derrell, "LANDOWNERS PERCEPTIONS OF CROP 
DAMAGE FROM WHITE-TAILED DEER IN SOUTH CAROLINA" (1993). 6 - Sixth Eastern Wildlife Damage 
Control Conference (1993). 32. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc6/32 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences at 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in 6 - Sixth Eastern Wildlife 
Damage Control Conference (1993) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - 
Lincoln. 
LANDOWNERS PERCEPTIONS OF CROP DAMAGE FROM WHITE-TAILED DEER IN
SOUTH CAROLINA
WEBB M. SMATHERS JR. and GARY R. STRATTON, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, South Carolina
Agricultural Experiment Station, Clemson University
DERRELL SHIPES, Deer Project Leader, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department
ABSTRACT: Survey respondents reported a definite increase in the population of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in
South Carolina. Almost 73% of the producers from a random sample indicated that deer populations have increased over the five
year period preceding 1991. With a higher deer population, crop damage from deer became more prevalent, and 72% of the
producers indicated having some level of damage. The producers in the sample had mixed feelings about the damage their crops
received with 70% indicating that the damage was either negligible or was tolerable in exchange for having deer around. In South
Carolina the increasing deer population and problem with crop damage is regional in nature, with certain regions of the state being
affected more than others. About one-third of the agricultural producers in South Carolina reflected an attitude that they were
substantially negatively affected by deer damage to crops.
Proc. East. Wild. Damage Control Conf. 6:160-165. 1995.
“To a deer, a soybean field looks like a big dish of chocolate
yogurt.”
Jim Palmer, Soybean Specialist
Clemson University
The above quote by Dr. Jim Palmer of Clemson
University’s Extension Service may sound humorous to many,
however to agricultural producers in South Carolina who have
experienced crop damage from white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) the quote describes a serious problem.
Agricultural and wildlife professionals across the nation agree
that agricultural damage caused by wildlife, including deer,
has been increasing nationwide over the past 30 years
(Conover and Decker 1991).
In South Carolina, it is estimated that there is a substantial
loss in revenue to agricultural producers from deer damaging
crops. The increasing deer depredation in South Carolina is
due in large part to increasing deer populations because of
the inadequate harvest of doe deer. However, there is another
factor — the changing land use patterns which have increased
human activity in prime deer habitat. Timber harvesting and
the effects of Hurricane Hugo also have added to the deer
problem, the difficulty of harvest, and with canopy closure
added pressure for deer to encroach on agricultural lands.
These large scale and wide spread alterations of deer habitat
cause deer to venture into populous areas or areas of
agricultural production where they are naturally attracted in
order to locate food.
In order to address the issue of crop damage caused by
deer, Clemson University, in cooperation with the South
Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department
(SCWMRD), conducted a survey of South Carolina
agricultural producers to determine the extent of crop damage.
The goal of this project was to determine the extent of damage
and develop policy actions which can be taken by the
SCWMRD, landowners, and sportsmen, in order to moderate
the effects of crop damage in the future. All groups involved,
the SCWMRD, the landowner, and the sportsmen, must work
together in order to better manage the deer population in South
Carolina.
METHODS
Agricultural producers were asked to help in an effort to
determine the level of crop damage caused by deer, and
ascertain where this damage was occurring in South Carolina.
A survey was conducted in 1992 which inquired about 1991
crop damage and deer population trends. Two samples, a
random sample and a non-random sample of South Carolina
agricultural producers were sent questionnaires. The random
sample consisted of 3,018 persons selected from a list of 6,036
producers, all of which either owned or operated one hundred
acres or more (list provided by the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service).
The non-random sample, made up of 336 producers, was
termed the deer “permit” sample and consisted of producers
who had petitioned and received shoot-to-kill permit(s) for
deer. A shoot-to-kill permit allowed the agricultural producer
to destroy a certain number of deer on their affected property.
The number of deer a producer was allowed to destroy
depended upon the intensity of crop damage experienced. In
South Carolina law enforcement officers with SCWMRD are
the authorized issuing agents.
The questionnaire contained some of the characteristics
found in surveys previously conducted in Arkansas,
Wisconsin, and Tennessee with additions specific to South
Carolina (Wigley et al. 1989, Spencer et al. 1984, M. King,
University of Tennessee, pers. commun.). The total design
method (TDM) of mail questionnaire construction discussed
in Dillman (1978) was used throughout the survey process.
From the random sample there were 1,153 questionnaires
returned, a response rate of approximately 38% (1,153/3,018).
The permit sample had an even better response rate with 173
returned for a rate of approximately 51% (173/336).
RESULTS
Deer seemed to cause at least some damage to all sectors
of South Carolina agriculture, from row crops to fruit trees.
However, soybeans, tobacco, and cotton were the crops which
sustained the most severe reported damage. The soybean
producers responding to the questionnaire reported that 70%
of their soybean acreage had some level of damage, tobacco
producers reported 49% of acreage with some level of damage,
and the cotton producers indicated having 41% of acreage
damaged at some level. The explanation for this damage may
come from the deer population trend. There was a definite
increase in the population trend of deer in South Carolina
with almost 73% of the producers (random sample) indicating
that in their opinion deer populations have increased over the
past five years (Fig. 1). The remaining producers either
indicated a decrease in population, a status quo, or they did
not know.
Crop damage from deer varied throughout the state from
none to severe. Almost 72% of the producers (random sample)
indicated having some level of crop damage (Fig. 2). However,
there were 310(28.1%) respondents indicating that they had
no damage.
The producers in the random sample had mixed feelings
about the damage their crops received with 70% (n=768)
indicating that the damage was either negligible or was
tolerable in exchange for having deer around. The remainder
of the respondents felt that the damage was unreasonable (Fig.
3). As might be expected a majority of the permit sample
indicated that the amount of damage was unreasonable. Some
level of crop damage from deer occurred on at least some
segment of 30 percent of the respondents agricultural land.
Producers responses to damage to their crops (deterrents)
was mixed. Some were attempting to do nothing while others
were using fences and scare devices. The most common
control measure reported was shoot-to-kill permits, however
a majority (80.0%) of those reporting crop damage (in the
random sample) did not apply for a shoot-to-kill permit. In
the random sample 113 (20.0%) applied while 488 (80.0%)
did not.
Producers from both samples had mixed feelings about
the effectiveness of shoot-to-kill permits. From the random
sample 54.2% of those applying for shoot-to-kill permits said
they were effective while 45.8% said they were not (N=601).
In the permit sample 554% indicated that the permits were
effective while 54 (44.6%) said they were not (Fig. 4).
There were other non-lethal methods of controlling deer
attempted to alleviate some of the crop damage from deer,
such as chemical repellents, fence construction, and devices
to scare deer. From the random sample, 171 (28.7%) of the
producers used some non-harvesting method either in place
of, or in conjunction with, harvesting deer, while 424 (71.3%)
did not. Producers were then asked to indicate whether these
methods were useful. Twenty producers responded with fence
construction being the most beneficial and scare devices and
chemical repellents being second and third in importance,
respectively.
Fig. 1. Deer population trends.
In the permit sample 116 (73.4%) took other steps to
control crop damage, while 42 (26.6%) did not. Five of the
producers who took these steps indicated that fence
construction and scare devices were the most beneficial. Of
the control methods reported, there was a clear preference for
lethal methods over non-lethal, and the lethal methods were
reported to be far more effective.
Another control method indicated was a modification in
the farm plan, for example, switching from growing soybeans
to some other crop(s) because of crop damage to soybeans. In
the random sample there were 265 (34.6%) who indicated a
farm modification, while 500 (65.4%) did not. In the permit
sample 93 (61.2%) said they modified their farm plan because
of crop damage from deer, while 59 (38.8%) did not. In
conversations with respondents, many of the farm plan
modifications removed highly susceptible crops from small
fields, and especially those small fields bordered by woods or
cut over areas. Reduced soybean acreage in modified farm
plans was due to crop damage, and reduced soybean prices
were received at the farm gate.
There was a sharp contrast in feelings toward deer
between the random and permit sample (Fig. 5). In the random
sample, approximately 52% either enjoyed seeing deer around
or could accept the current level damage, 26% enjoyed a few
deer but worried about crop damage, 14% regarded deer as a
nuisance, and 8% had no particular feeling concerning deer.
In the permit sample, over 81% of the producers either worried
about crop damage or regarded deer as a nuisance. Clearly,
deer are enjoyed by many of the respondents; however, in a
competitive industry with often small profit margins, about
half were worried about damage from deer.
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
The average non-farm income for the random sample was
$38,419.63, and the farm income for the random sample was
$97,829.79. The average nonfarm income for the permit
sample was $26,518.52, and the farm income for the permit
sample was $82,207.03.
Both samples showed post-high school educations. The
random sample’s average education level was 13.6 years, while
the average education level of the permit sample was 12.6
years.
The vast majority of the respondents in both sample was
male. In the random sample 1009 (92.1%) males and 87 (7.9%)
females responded. In the permit sample 157 (95.2%) males
and 8 (4.8%) females responded.
Fig. 2. Crop damage from deer.
Fig. 3. Amount of deer damage to crops caused by deer.
Fig. 4. Effectiveness of shoot-to-kill permits.
Fig. 5. Feelings regarding present deer population.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
In South Carolina increasing deer populations and
problems with crop damage are regional in nature, with certain
regions of the state being affected more than others. Both
increasing deer populations and crop damage caused from
those deer seems to be of a higher magnitude in the “low
Country” near the coast of South Carolina and in the areas
affected by Hurricane Hugo. These two areas of South Carolina
are also where the largest number of row crop farms are
located.
Generally speaking, about one-third of the agricultural
producers in South Carolina reflect the attitude they are
substantially negatively affected by deer damage to crops.
These areas of damage are expanding with the increasing sire
of the deer herd, especially in the areas with significant habitat
alteration caused by Hurricane Hugo, as well as in areas where
large areas of wood products have been harvested. Increased
doe harvest by sportsmen and a changing attitude by
landowners toward hunters will be required to alleviate the
damage from white-tailed deer in South Carolina. landowners
and sportsmen alike must consider themselves as wildlife
managers and not just economic or recreational users of
wildlife, especially as harvest decisions are made and carried
out as related to white-tailed deer.
LITERATURE CITED
Conover, M.R. and D.J. Decker. 1991. “Wildlife Damage to
Crops: Perceptions of Agricultural and Wildlife
Professionals in 1957 and 1987.” Wildlife Society
Bulletin. 19:46-52.
Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys-the total
design method. Wiley. New York, NY.
Spencer, C.D., J. Davies, J.S. Rowe, and T. Vesey. October
1984. “Wisconsin Deer Population and Damage Survey.”
Wisconsin Agriculture Reporting Service, Madison,
Wisconsin.
Wigley, B. T. Jr., R.A. Kluender, and R. A. Pierce. 1989.
“Landowner Reports of Deer Damage in the Arkansas
Coastal Plain.” Proceedings Annual Conference
Southeastern Association Fish and Wildlife Agencies 43:
306312.


https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=ewdcc6

LANDOWNERS PERCEPTIONS OF CROP DAMAGE FROM WHITE-TAILED DEER IN SOUTH CAROLINA

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

DigitalCommons@USU

UNL | Libraries