'); } -->
In the rush of 11th-hour lawmaking last week, a bill that would have banned private ownership of exotic animals took a quiet second trip to legislative purgatory.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Ed Jones, stuck the measure into an end-of-session study bill after the proposed ban drew intense criticism. State agriculture officials, agribusiness interests and a loose coalition of private zoo and sanctuary owners, reptile keepers and trainers who conduct animal education programs in schools, churches and other venues objected to the ban.
Backed by the Animal Protection Institute, a California-based animal rights group, the bill originally would have slapped a ban on a broad range of exotic animals for public health and safety reasons -- from lions and tigers to bats, pythons, monkeys and apes. Supporters said a ban is needed to protect people from disease and prevent tragedies such as the 2003 death of a Wilkes County fourth-grader who was mauled by a tiger kept in his aunt's backyard.
But critics of the bill said it reached well beyond the laudable goal of banning backyard ownership of tigers and other large carnivores by including restrictions that would have put small zoo owners and animal educators out of business. Opponents also lambasted an earlier study committee chaired by David Jones, head of the N.C. Zoological Park in Asheboro, saying it was stacked with animal rights activists and turned in a final report five months late -- after the Senate exotic animal ban legislation was introduced.
Jones, a Democrat from Halifax County, tucked his bill into a measure that charges the Legislative Research Commission to study the proposed ban after it ran into opposition in a Senate committee and special subcommittee.
At least one member of that subcommittee, Sen. Eddie Goodall, a Republican from suburban Charlotte, questions whether supporters of the ban have proven a broad public health and safety threat from exotic animals.
"There just didn't seem to be a need to do something drastic," Goodall said.
Hamilton explains action
Richard B. Hamilton said he resigned Monday as executive director of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission because he thought he would be fired.
"They were going to fire me, so they gave me the chance to resign," he said Tuesday.
The commission appointed Chief Deputy Director Fred Harris as interim executive director.
Hamilton said he was aware of commissioners' opposition to Joan Troy, the commission's legislative liaison. Troy said Monday that commissioners' resentment of her influence had led to Hamilton's resignation.
"I was told [the meeting] was to reorganize the executive director's office," Hamilton said. "I wasn't consulted. I suspect from all I've seen they had an interest in eliminating her position."
Hamilton, who said Troy had done "exactly what I asked her to do," resigned after waiting outside a four-hour executive session by the commission, which then called him back in.
Commission Chairman Wes Seegars said the 18-man panel knew Hamilton's resignation was "a possibility" but denied he was about to be fired.
"Dick thought it was in the best interest of the commission to resign. He was not forced to resign," Seegars said. "We have nothing but the highest regard for Dick Hamilton."
Seegars did say that the commission had ordered Harris, the interim executive director, to review Troy's position. Troy is still employed by the commission and is working out of her home.
Etheridge pushes ethanol
U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge is promoting North Carolina ethanol. The Lillington Democrat visited a lab Tuesday at N.C. State's Centennial Campus that aims to produce the biofuel from poplar trees.
Corn is one of the most cost-effective sources, but Dr. Vincent Chiang, co-director of NCSU's forest biotechnology group, thinks that by genetically modifying the trees, he can make them competitive.
On his way out, Etheridge told Chiang that he is "as important as our top generals" to national security.
(Staff writers Jim Nesbitt and Mike Zlotnicki contributed to this report.)
Get it all with convenient home delivery of The News & Observer.
The News & Observer is pleased to be able to offer its users the opportunity to make comments and hold conversations online. However, the interactive nature of the internet makes it impracticable for our staff to monitor each and every posting.
Since The News & Observer does not control user submitted statements, we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted on our website. In addition, we remind anyone interested in making an online comment that responsibility for statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The News and Observer.
If you find a comment offensive, clicking on the exclamation icon will flag the comment for review by the administrators, we are counting on the good judgment of all our readers to help us.