A proposal to restrict the use of drones, kayaks and other assisted methods of deploying fishing bait from Sullivan’s Island’s front beach is being reconsidered after state officials warned that the town may not have the legal authority to regulate how people fish.
Town Council reviewed Ordinance 2026-05 during its August meeting. As initially drafted, the measure would allow fishing from the front beach only with a traditional rod and reel cast by hand.
The proposal was intended to address concerns about anglers using equipment to carry bait farther offshore than it could be cast manually, potentially placing bait, chum and fishing activity near areas used by swimmers.
“Mechanically assisted methods of delivering fishing lines and bait from shore, including the use of [drones], kayaks, and other devices have become increasingly popular among recreational anglers,” the ordinance states.
Before council advanced the proposal, however, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources advised the town that the restriction may be preempted by state law.
South Carolina’s Constitution recognizes the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife, subject to regulations established by the General Assembly. State law also grants DNR jurisdiction over saltwater fishing. Based on that framework, the agency contends that decisions about permissible fishing methods belong to the state, not individual municipalities.
“In our view, the regulations that define fishing methods are fundamentally different from the regulations that address public safety and the safe operation of equipment or hazardous conduct,” DNR Marine Resources Division Deputy Director Blaik Keppler told council.
That distinction became the central issue in the discussion. While Sullivan’s Island may not be able to prohibit a particular fishing method, DNR indicated that the town could regulate conduct that creates a specific public safety hazard.
The proposed ordinance contains two primary provisions. Section A would prohibit mechanically assisted methods of deploying fishing lines and bait. Section B would authorize police officers to stop fishing activity or require an angler to relocate if the activity is deemed dangerous to the public.
DNR believes Section A conflicts with the state’s authority over fishing regulations. Section B, however, could remain.
DNR suggested several alternatives that could allow the town to address its safety concerns without regulating fishing methods. Those options include establishing reasonable buffer distances from designated swimming areas and regulating the operation of drones or other equipment when their use creates a hazard in congested public areas.
The state’s position does not necessarily mean the proposed restriction is poor policy. Rather, Councilmember Justin Novak noted, DNR is advising that the General Assembly or the agency itself, not Town Council, must decide whether those fishing methods should be prohibited.
The town’s proposal was partly prompted by concern that deploying larger amounts of bait farther offshore could attract sharks or other marine animals into areas frequented by swimmers. It was also influenced by similar restrictions considered or adopted in other South Carolina beach communities.
“One of the things that prompted us to want to take action was that other nearby beaches had already taken action,” Mayor Patrick O’Neil said. “There was a concern it might drive more of that activity here than existed before.”
DNR, however, told council that it is not aware of evidence connecting mechanically deployed bait with an increase in shark bites. According to Keppler, anglers have long used kayaks to carry bait beyond the surf, and sharks are already present in those waters.
Data from the International Shark Attack File also does not demonstrate a clear connection, she said. Among the shark bite incidents documented, fishing was reported nearby in only one instance.
“If it were contested, it would ultimately be a matter for a court to decide,” Keppler said. “But we do believe that they are in conflict.”
Council also considered moving forward with Section B, the public safety provision, while revising Section A, the prohibition on assisted fishing. Police Chief Glenn Meadows cautioned that the language, as written, would give officers too much discretion to determine when fishing becomes unsafe.
“My judgment about what is unsafe as a fisherman is going to be different from the judgment of somebody who is not a fisherman,” Meadows said. “Leaving that up to an individual officer’s determination is very broad.”
Council ultimately paused the ordinance rather than advancing it in its current form. The town will revise Section A to align with state law and develop more specific standards for when police may intervene in fishing activity that presents a public safety risk.