Conservators Center breathing easier, still looking at altered private ownership of big cats legislation

Big cats are commonly housed at the Conservators Center, which is on the border of Caswell and Alamance counties. File photo

 

By Michael D. Abernethy / Times-News

Published: Monday, May 4, 2015

A bill that drew outcry from an exotic-animal refuge in Caswell County passed through the N.C. House in an amended form last week. The changed bill poses fewer threats to the state’s nonprofit wildlife attractions, directors of the Conservators Center say, though they and others are still combing through the bill as it progresses to the N.C. Senate. 

House Bill 554 is intended to restrict private ownership of wild and dangerous animals such as big cats, bears, wolves and primates. But the Conservator’s Center and other wildlife facilities raised concerns about the unintended consequences of the bill’s wording, and earlier this month the Caswell County center said HB554 could force it to close if passed.

Concern over the language in the bill, largely written by the Humane Society and submitted by Rep. Chuck McGrady, R-Henderson, led both of Alamance County’s representatives — Steve Ross, R-63, and Dennis Riddell, R-64 — to vote against it Thursday. It passed 79-33.

Riddell called the bill an “overreach,” even after provisions were made to allow exceptions for small primates in research facilities. He said requirements to be grandfathered by the legislation were difficult to attain.

Ross said he values the Conservators Center and took seriously concerns the facility raised. Many of the worries were ironed out with new language he said, though not before the House voted. “When it came to the floor, there were still issues with it,” Ross said. “The bill has now been cleaned up even further. As it moves to the Senate (in its current form), I could probably support it. … My understanding is that it’s been cleaned up to where it meets everyone’s satisfaction.” 

Throughout the bill’s progression, the Conservators Center has posted updated statements and questions about the legislation, calling on other nature and science organizations to contact legislators.

Executive Director Mindy Stinner’s original complaints about the bill were many and varied, from the fact the original bill didn’t exempt U.S. Department of Agriculture-licensed facilities, to the unintended possibility that veterinary students with universities would no longer be able to observe and learn from procedures performed on the center’s exotic animals. Stinner said the bill would have forbidden public, educational tours of the center, a main source of income and donations.

Organizations not exempted by the bill would have had to acquire an insurance policy of at least $250,000 with a $250 deductible. Stinner said that policy didn’t exist and, if it were created, the deductible would be cost-prohibitive. The requirement for that deductible was removed in the bill’s most recent published version.

Others disagreed with Stinner’s take on the bill, including the director of the Carolina Tiger Rescue in Chatham County, who said the bill’s original form exempted nonprofits from the ban on commercial activity.

Regardless, most of the questions about what is allowed by the bill have been resolved in the bill’s latest form. The Conservators Center’s latest post thanked legislators and McGrady for being open to rewording the bill to “eliminate some of the most dramatic unintended consequences written into it.” “We are very optimistic that our additional concerns, as well as those of stakeholders who have not yet been consulted, will be addressed by the Senate,” the statement said. “We have several supporters in the Senate who understand some of the remaining issues, many of which are related to technical industry language and concepts that are challenging to negotiate. We are confident these will be worked through as the bill progresses through Senate committees.”

source