South Carolina Senate Bill S0961

South Carolina 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/26/26
• Refer: 2/26/26
• Engrossed: 3/19/26
• Refer: 3/24/26
• Enrolled: 5/14/26
• Passed: 5/19/26
• Chaptered: 6/3/26

Caption

Red drum, saltwater fish, deer hunting

Summary

S0961 makes several changes to South Carolina wildlife and hunting regulations. On the saltwater side, it reduces the daily possession limit for red drum from two fish to one fish per person, lowers the boat limit from six to two, and increases the legal size range by raising the minimum length from 15 to 18 inches and the maximum length from 23 to 25 inches. It also updates gear rules for saltwater gamefish by requiring a non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hook when a person uses handheld hook-and-line gear with natural bait and a hook size of 4/0 or larger. The bill also changes deer hunting tag rules. It increases the number of antlerless deer tags issued to residents with a hunting license and big game permit from two to three, while keeping three unrestricted antlered deer tags. It also allows residents to buy additional antlerless tags and antler-restriction antlered tags under specified fee structures, and it adjusts nonresident deer tag fees and limits, including requiring two of the nonresident antlered tags to be antler-restriction tags. The deer tag changes take effect upon gubernatorial approval, while the rest of the act takes effect July 1, 2026. The bill’s impact is to amend multiple sections of the South Carolina Code governing saltwater gamefish harvest and deer hunting licenses/tags. It tightens red drum harvest limits and modifies size restrictions, which would affect recreational anglers, charter/boat fishing parties, and enforcement of marine fisheries rules. It also expands and restructures deer tag availability and pricing for residents and nonresidents, affecting hunters and the Department of Natural Resources’ licensing administration. Overall sentiment appears broadly favorable, as reflected in strong bipartisan vote margins in both chambers. The Senate and House votes show substantial support, including unanimous Senate action on the amendment adoption and large House majorities on passage and concurrence. The absence of recorded committee debate suggests little publicly documented controversy in the available materials. The main points of potential contention are the stricter red drum harvest limits and the revised deer tag structure, especially for nonresidents who face higher fees and more restrictive tag requirements. Anglers who target red drum may view the reduced bag limit and larger size window as more restrictive, while hunters may focus on whether the tag changes increase opportunity for residents or raise costs and limits for nonresidents. Even so, the recorded votes indicate limited opposition overall.

Impact

This bill amends South Carolina Code sections governing saltwater gamefish and deer hunting. It changes red drum catch and size limits, adds a circle-hook requirement for certain saltwater fishing methods, and revises resident and nonresident deer tag issuance, fees, and antler-restriction tag rules. These changes directly affect the Department of Natural Resources’ enforcement and licensing practices, as well as recreational anglers and hunters statewide.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have received generally positive and bipartisan support. It passed the Senate and House by wide margins, and the Senate unanimously adopted the House amendment. The vote history suggests the measure was not highly divisive, at least in the recorded floor action.

Contention

The likely areas of disagreement are the tighter red drum harvest rules and the deer tag revisions, particularly the higher nonresident fees and the requirement that some nonresident antlered tags be antler-restriction tags. Anglers may object to the reduced red drum possession limit, while hunters could debate whether the deer tag changes appropriately balance wildlife management, access, and cost. No committee transcript is available, so the specific arguments for and against the bill are not documented in the provided materials.