A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

Senate | April 22, 2015 | Committee Room | Senate: Agriculture, Environment, Natural Resources

Full MP3 Audio File

There you go, here push a little button. Welcome to everyone. We're going to have a good time today, everybody is in their places with bright shiny faces. I want to start with introducing the pages Emily, I'm not sure how to pronounce this name, Emily where you at? Brian. Thank you. Emily Brian, Nick Mills, thank you sir, A. J Swame, how are you, thanks for coming. Hope you enjoy your stay. Sergeant at Arms, Charles Marsail, is a mayor caling an athelte in his day Anderson Meadows. Where is he? There he is, Come in. Alright, so much for house keeping, we'll get right into our schedule First bill we have is PCS for Senate Bill 303 Sir, we're moved to accept the PCS for 303. Protect well being of NC citizens, do I hear a motion? Alright, all in favor Aye And opposed, motion carried, alright let's start, Senator [xx] Thank you Mr, Chairman. This bill attempts to stop a major over reach by the Federal EPA which will create thousands of new onerous un needed regulations make it far more difficult for families to use wood spares to heat their homes] by reinforcing North Carolina. The EPA has drafted over 300 pages worth of new regulations on the emissions of wood burning stoves and heaters, in many cases even applying the heaters that were previously unregulated. These regulations would significantly increase the cost of wood burning heater and stoves a consequence that would not only devastate the local small businesses building these products but also place an additional financial burden on  lots of folks who can least afford it. They would also dis-proportionally affect families in our mountain communities many of them poor in rural where far greater numbers rely solely on wood fire to heat to keep them warm during the winter. In Swain County for example 12. 3% of the resident relies solely on wood fired heat and that's in the county where 26% of the people live at or below the poverty line. In Yancey County 17.6% of residents rely solely on wood fired heat while 20% live at or below the poverty line. level and these government regulations are truly unnecessary since it has been reported all stages near the bottom and national ranking for mission related to with 38. That's why this bill allows North Carolina to exercise its right to enforcing the pending EPA rules, it prohibits the environmental management commission and Department of National Resources from full meaning and forcing these bottom regulations against businesses or consumers. And with that I'd like to welcome the other bill sponsor Ralphies to the podium to say of your words. Thank you, Mr. Chairman of the day for them to speak. I should say that I think we've reached a point in this nation that the EPA has gone completely ridiculous. I represent counties that we are approaching nearly one out of every five homes is hidden by the burning of wood. It's been that way since we founded West of North Carolina in the 1900s. We had to build in. Now we have federal government that wakes up and decides we need to control that it's such a big problem, so we're coming in. This isn't a joke to this individuals, while the EPA regulations may initially only apply to when you're putting in a new stove, that also means that parts, maintenance and operation of your old stoves is now going away. We are going to force everyone

into the new standards, I also represent Back Stove in my district, one of the largest manufacturers of wood fire stoves. We are going to force them to change the entire process they have been building for generations, to make this new requirements, and we're going to force everyone to buy the new products. A new stove replacement in someone's home someone who is choosing a source that may ultimately be free to them, they will spend many hours splitting logs and stacking wood, but if they have the property may have free source can cost between $2 and $4, 000, now to replace their heating system and to encourage them to replace it with the system that requires them to to now pay for fuel, in the operations we need stand up and make sure this does not come to North Carolina, this is not unique to North Carolina this is something every state is facing, but for the Western part of the state this is the part of who we are and this is part of how we live, an individual and I'm glad to say that we can take some actions here in the state to make sure this isn't and foresteer to make sure we stop automatically taking pedler regulation and applying them on the citizens of North Carolina, and to make sure we don't have a further intrusion and other part rise, thank you Senate, do we really have any questions, Senator Thank you Mr. Chair, Thank you Mr. Chairman I am going to move in favour of report and appreciate this gentlemen bringing this before us, we would not have any ruling for 30 years and I've had no problems with it because I've got chronic portation from carbon monoxide extra which is a good thing but I would take anything for the Hitler of God, and this will made and I'm very familiar with bugs, so thank you both for bringing this forward, thank you Mr. chairman. Thank you, you were then one of the head up was senator Lowland, oK, senator Brian. Yes mum. I was just wanting it seems like, it seems the BEO has other provisions other than what the bill is endorsed in it, I was going to stay and just review what  the bill actually the bill does, and its totality please and then I wanted to ask is there are any people here from the audience who want to speak against it, or for or whatever. So we can hear from perhaps some experts who might be here, who could speak about the impact. So do you want to hear from the staff first? Anybody on the staff want handle this? Thank you Mr. Chairman, senator Brian just to walk you all through the bill quickly. Section one of the PCS as the co sponsors describe that would prohibit the EMC and DNR firm issuing rules to implement the regulations pertaining to wood stoves that have been promulgated by the UCPA. Section two would prohibit the department of Environmental and Natural Resources and the EMC from enforcing federal air missions. Standards that are adopted by the USCPA for the regulation of fuel combustion that is used directly or indirectly to provide hot water for comfort heating to either resident or comfort heating to a business. Sections two proof for what amend the process by which the division of air quality adopt federal standards for resource performance standards national emission standards for hazards air pollutants and maximum achievable control technologies is there propagated down by the USEPA under current rules in the administrative code, those are an effect adopted by default after a 12 more superior after those rules are noticed and they state register and after a public common period they come to full force, what sections two through four would is to modify that process to establish a new process by which those federal regulations are adopted by the commission which will  require the commission to adopt their standards by a 3/5 vote, and then they would also has to be subject to a legislator for review. Section five of the PCS would prohibit the EMC from enforcing any of those previous adopted standards under the new source performance standards rule, the maximum achievable control technology rule, and the national admissions  standards for hazards air house pollutants rule, and so there we adopted under the processes that are outlined in section two through four of the PCS.

Be happy to answer any questions. Follow up? In addition to hearing from anyone in the audience who would want to speak, I would also just be interested from the aganicy stand point. Does is impact any funding? Impact any other sort of business, industrial operations investments ec cetera Thanks. I understand that the assistant secretary of DENR is here would you care to comment please? I'm Tom Reeder, I'm, the assistant secretary for environment with DENR. This bill is actually pretty benial, basically what happens is the EPA event occasionally comes out with these new standards for different air pollutants like, they call them not new source performance standards and maximum of control technology, Max and an SPS, and basically they come out with these standards for things like wood stoves, generators and such like things, and all that bills say is that we don't automatically adopt those things in North Carolina which is a good thing because we have limited resources, and we can't use all of our limited resources to go out and inspect towns in Western or North Carolina to see if they're compliant with the but store requirements or not. The Feds can still implement this rules in North Carolina if they want to, so it doesn't really have any environmental impact, it's just saying that North Carolina is not going to automatically going to us its real sources to employ its new standards to come out of washington, a lot of states already do this, a lot of states do not automatically adopt these standards, we in the past have not adopted some of these standards, so this is just putting in place our practises that can take care and follow practises that we followed in the past and its going to make use of our limited resources here in North Carolina because we want to lie and follow what is coming out of washington and say yeah, what do that until we have a chance to look at the side that have interest in North Carolina or not, we are like going to make a little change on this, but a lot of people quite and don't realise we have the cleanest air code in North Carolina right and than we planned in 20 years, so our air is cleaned today that it was in the last 20 or 30 years and have continuously get clear every day, that the something we have to consider, Thank you very much. Thank you, is there anybody else is the audience that would like to share the thoughts. All right see none gentlemen let's be cordial please all right well I'll wait alright I just want you. Mr Chairman we want [xx] for behaving over here so noted thank you [xx] Mr. Chairman. Yes Sir. I was going to say that Senator Brown and has a pack of peanuts on her desk if you take the time to eat those we can get through this meeting. Thank you Senator [xx] Ooh Lord nobody from the audience want to speak so will go to unless there's somebody in the let me came here that wants to talk I think Senator Bingham said enough anyway let's vote all in favor this PC, unfavorable to the PCS, excuse me, unfavorable to the original, say aye Aye. All opposed [xx] to oppose thank you. See the referral to J1 has a serial refferal to J1. Has a serial refferal to J1 [xx] Yes sir Why would this happen [xx] referral to J1 [xx] Starn rules share. I'm going to present an expo so Senator Trudy Wade will take over the podium. Now we're here with senate bill 572 and there's a PCS I believe is there motion to accept PCS, Senator Brock, all those in favor "aye", oppose no, motion carries alright Senator. In February I met with farmers in Boulfard and Hyde counties they shared some

concerns with me and this the bill address those concerns with the following provisions, the department of transportation has asked to study the visibility of providing a combinations for agricultural and forests product transport where bridge weight restrictions precedes hardship, also the regulations governing the transport of fuel from a farm or forestry area to another farm or forestry area will be reviewed. The department of environment and natural resources has asked the study farm land drainage and recommend economically viable and environmentally sound methods to use for coastal agricultural lands I ask for your support. Other questions? Senator Forward. Thank you Madam Chair, Senator Cook I need a little bit of clarification from you as it relates to what you want the department of transportation to do as it relates to our bridges and based upon we already know. North Carolina 12, 493 bridges, 2, 177 of those are structurally deficient at a cost of $4.3 billion to fix. 3, 164 are functionally obsolete worth the cost of $5 billion to fix those. What more do you want DOT to tell more about the bridges? When I met with this farmers who were by the way the back economy, they expressed concerns that they can't often get their product to market without deviating around bridges that have certain weight restrictions. Certainly weight restrictions make good sense you don't build a bridge to hold the heaviest thing in the world but you also should build it with concern for businesses and so they should all impede economic activities, and that's all I'm asking for here. Let's look into, can we help these farmers in any way? Follow up. I'm all four regulatory relief for all business sectors in the State of North Carolina. I'm trying to understand the need and I don't want to unnecessarily run staff over DOT on a wild goose chase. So I was just looking for some further clarification and really that little bit deeper to understand what you are looking for from those folks as it relates to the information we got the we dispatches. Senator Cook. I'll have to try again. What we're trying to do is help the farmers get their product to market. If there's a better way maybe we can design bridges to, when designing bridges maybe we can design them to recognize the weight requirements of the local businesses around them. Maybe we can do other things that would help the farmers get their product to market. I don't know, that's why I'm asking for this Bill. Senator Cook. Thanks, Senator Brock wanted to add a comment if it's alright with you. Please. Thank you Madam Chair. Senator Ford one thing this would do would just look at the how many times his bridges are used in this area is not on a daily occurrence like we have in urban areas where you have the daily traffic. For you are looking at sometimes maybe bringing something structs over and once a year or it's a couple of a for scribes may be once over 25 years, so you look at that some rare occurrences what we need to use is to make sure that the bridge can withstand that and also senator Cook said to make sure we provide relief for that closed community in Four street community, but look at how we can use this, and actually cut the cost of getting our goods above this market, and  to use something but I will take note of these bridges that you speak of for many many years that the administrations that were in charge of DOT squandered money and now are a way behind the eight ball in this one and it has cost us take a lot of catch up, so thank you for bring up the failure of past administration. I'll look Senator [xx] Thank you Madam Chair, if this bill passes I will respectfully request a serial referral to committee on transportation or Top of rules about it that will take advancement, I think Senator Taker you have to hand up next, Yes Madam, I'm sorry for being late Madam Chair

just look at this I guess comment and question, number one Senator Rabin can speak to this but we have spent most of our dollars of recent fixing bridges, I think you sent forward will have seen that around Mecklenburg and Real counties and fix in this division bridges we instead of building new highway, we've chosen through transportation to try to maintain some of this bridge but it is what it is no matter what anybody had done, Senator Cook I just to ask sometimes you do a study and you get what you don't want and we have extended the way on some of the our roads and bridges 90, 000 pound weight, we've widened for hall and hey Senator Jackson a lot of things like that we done things to help the agriculture community if we do the study then we may recommend we light weight on bridges and then what does we do? Just asking that question sir, I have no intention of not voting for the study I'm just saying we may end up what we don't want and I would like to hear your comment senator Jackson or senator Blocker whomever might speak to this. Senator cook. Good point, thank you, I talked to this farmers to some length and this was a major concern to him, so I think if there is some possibility that the situation will get worse I guess we have to take that [xx] I want to help him. Senator Jackson? Thank you Madam chair. To address one comment you made senator you are incorrect, we have increased the road weight limits that it does not apply to any bridge, you still have to abide by the bridge rules that are said in and the posted bridges are still posted. So we've not touched the bridges when it comes to lifting the weights on poles. Senator Brown? Senator you're absolutely right if this study shows back information that may be detrimental to this course, but we're going to make decisions based on data not political wills as it was done in the past. Senator Bingham? Thank you Madam chairman, Senator Cook, I just wanted to comment that the structural engineers designed and came up with is and there has been a common practice, since he has a degree in structural engineering, and they mathematically calculate the way this bridge are safely designed and build and they have a lifespan of a certain number of years, and there is a lot of scientific evidence and prove, and to just really really increase the weight of these bridges without consultation with, I mean, I feel is a serious mistake you know and I don't know do we have someone here from the Bridge Division of DOT to speak about this? Is there anyone here from DOT that could speak on this issue? I'm not seeing anyone Senator Bingham. If I may? Yes senator Carthon, I'm not suggesting  that we nearly changed the weight lamps that would be stupid. What I'm suggesting is maybe we need to better design the bridge to begin with to accommodate farm product going to and from market, that's all I'm suggesting, and any other good ideas that the department of transportation may have to address this problem. Certainly we're not going to try to overrule Science, it's not my intention at all. Well I'm glad to hear you say it but yeah thank you Madam Chairman but I think it will be a good idea from my perspective to hear from structural engineer from the bridge division to at least comment on this. I don't know what kind of dollars would be but anyway so be it, be a [xx] your wish. Staff is there an other committee this will be?   [xx] I'll refer on this one. Will staff like to comment at all? It's what I thought. Senator Raven we will see about transportation, I know you requested that with  rules. Yes sir. Thank you Madam Chair let me go a step further because I feel Senator Cook Peinn, but let me say that North Carolina, and this general assembly in the

last budget it has been putting in about $400 million toward improving bridges, and we've improved about 1500, but a bridge as senator Bingham said has a lifespan of 30 to 50 years, and senator Ford said we have a lot of old and deficient type bridges, and as those come on line, I'm sure that they will be built to today's standards rather than the standards they were 30 years ago. But having said that, that takes time and I would like for this committee to understand that every bridge in this state is inspected and rated at least once every two years, and a report is given annually to the condition of those bridges in the state. So this may be redundant that I requested a referral because this may already be going on and maybe just not as rapidly as some of our farmers would like but we're trying to get in front of this ball, we're still behind it. Thank you Senator Raven. Senator Ryben[sp?] Thank you Madam chair. I think this question is more for staff in reading the overview and listening to the discussion, is it explicit in the legislation that we're talking about, that one of the uses would be made of the study if we do it would be to ensure that the consideration of the commercial interstate commerce needs that it meets the needs of the local farms that are part of the discussion right now, like going forward would the next time they build the bridge and [xx] knowing what the traffic is going to be based on the study, we're going to be an experson there to ensure that the next bridge is built so that it does accommodate to the traffic, rather than going through the problem. If it's not explicit then we're just going round and round. Thank you. Staff, have a comment? Thank you Madam chairman, Senator RayBan I will point you to, on the first page of the bill, line 14 through 17 where the study is supposed to look into the impact on transport of products, and then whether that impact is factored into bridge weight limit decisions, so that's a thought exposed as I can read. Follow up? Follow up, yes. I'm talking about future, this, most provisions talk to right now to look at the impacts but in the future, if the bridge is replaced, redone, or a new one built, will then make the same consideration and be sure there is supports, the commercial interest, and the farmers' interest. Staff. I would say that the word future development, and future building is not explicitly written there, if there's something of a concern and draw up an amendment and add the word future in there. If this passes today, then it will be going to the floor next unless we get a serial referral to transportation we could draw an amendment for the floor if necessary. Senator Cook do you have anything to add? NO, thank you for the discussion. Any other, senator [xx]? I just wanted to make sure, see if we had anymore peanuts we could pass around. To summon other members on the other side of the room, Senator Brad, I appreciate your comments, the chair [xx] the motion.   So moved. We have a motion on the floor favourable to the PCS unfavorable to the region Bill Madam chairman, yes do you know the amendment to run this to transportation or not, okay thank you okay let's vote all those in favor say aye, aye, oppose say no, no,  aye's have it, thank you Senator Curl. Do you want to stay in the other bill what you are, senator Culr continue. That was senate Bill 374. My understanding is there's no PCS, is not a PCS, Senator Curl. Thank you, this Bill, this PCS. No PCS. No CP. Okay.

I want to recall the log book we put in the catch and print data by for hire also recreation, fishing licenses voluntary, it delays any such reporting until January 1 20 16, and requires a creation of stakeholders log book advisory group, additionally the division of marine fishery will be required to require to have a 12 month implementation process, I believe there was amendment of that, sure what's under, there was an amendment in the corners [xx] staff do you want to comment on that? Yes Mam, I believe memo was adopted in commerce committee that was in gross in to the second edition of Senate Bill 374 those before you and it is before you and it's what is the bottom of page one section four A and on the top of page two section four B and what this does is it changes the authority of the division inefficiencies, the ability to enter into a joint enforcement agreement with the National Marine Fishery Service year or two ago the general assembly authorized the division to do that this reverses that and prohibits the division of Marine Fisheries from being able to enter into such an agreement. Senator Bingham. Madam Chairman I would like to move for favorable report. Bless you. Are there any other questions? Senator Tucker. Senator Cook this maybe for staff don't think commercial fisherman are already rogue their catchers already and is this just another mandate plus I think probably is this going to require the bill to hire someone so there be a referral to finance on this do you know sir? The sure answers, no I believe yeah logbook hole me backup. The amendment they just talked about provides that we don't require logbooks and so this would take away a owners my back up. It takes away the joint enforcement, not Logbook, takes away joint enforcement, and that would lessen the amount of work that working fishermen has to perform in trying to make a living for his family, it just takes away another layer of bureaucratic regulation that we don't necessarily need. Follow up? So you're saying, is that the fares require one set of books which is onerous to the commercial fishermen  and within the state fisheries require another or can staff answer that for me I don't know. Or start answer. The law in North Carolina for, probably cost for 20 years it has been for commercial fishermen they have to report the trip data. The trip ticket program so they have had that for a number of years when you establish a recreational commercial licence ever used ago is also reporting requirement that apply to recreational fisherman. A year or two ago the language in section one of the bill was in its explicit form, the for higher licenses so this are your charge bill for those types of licenses an explicit requirement is put into the law regarding the log books it said that they had had to submit his log book to the division of change this bill will make to that specific provision is to make that voluntary. This doesn't change the reporting requirements for a commercial fisherman or recreation fisherman generally just for the for hire charter boat licences. Senator Curt, do you have anything to add? That's good. Okay, any other questions? then we have a motion for favorable report, all in favor say aye, oppose nay. Thank you Senator Cook. Motion carried Let's see 647. Let's, let's hear

about 647, this is a non trapping laws? Senator Sanderson. Thank you Mr Chairman members of the committee. Senator Cook seems like you just get from one hot set to another. I'm lucky that way. You are lucky that way. I want to thank the agriculture committed for allowing this bill to come forward to have this discussion today just for a little history this was a bill that was passed in the senate in 2013 it passed unanimously almost unanimously I think the vote was 48 to 2 then it got kind of side tracked in the house it was not able to move. It's an important a piece enough legislation that I thought that it was the right thing to bring it back again with a couple of changes in it, before we passed the version in 2013, we had stakeholders meeting with the division of wildlife, with the Trappers Association with the Hunting Dog Association those folks and when we came away from that meeting, I thought we had a pretty consensus bill piece of legislation. There was couple of items that came up right at the end and we had one of those organisations decide that this was not the correct thing to do. As far as what this bill does, it's pretty straight forward, if you look at your explanation sheet that goes with this amending trapping laws it amends general statutes 113-91.6 providing that bucket sales are prohibited, and I'll come back and explain exactly what that is. Establishes that conibear tie traps with bait and an inside jaw spread or opening greater than 51/2 inches, and no more that 71/2 inches can be set on dry land only under specified restrictions. It provides that conibear traps or tight traps set without an enclosure as described in this section and without bait, can be set on dry land also under specified restrictions. It requires that all individuals licence pursue it to this section after October 31st 2016 complete a Trapper Education Course, approved by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and it also directs the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to adopt rules, to require the reporting of domestic again most taken, actually but trapped, when [xx] came to the General said I had a very wise to tell me there was several areas and the children did not want to go legislatively, and this what I know, and so everyday I must be very hard here because not only divide doing what it wants, I'm trying to do these second time. But that's alright because my wife agrees I'm that way. I wanted to give you just a couple of quick facts about trapping so that you'll  be able to compare what North Carolina is doing now, what these bill is asking us to do, compared to some of us neighboring states that have a lot of the same issues that we do. Canobay[sp?] trap is not a trap to catch kind of bears, there is no such thing as a canobay[sp?] I have that question asked what is a canobay[sp?]? and as of yet I've looked on the internet but I haven't been able to find a picture of one but I'll keep looking. In South Carolina body traps of the [xx] type are set only in water or on slides to catch beavers. No bait is allowed to be used with body gripping trap spirit, and this is the information that I got as late as last night on the internet. In Georgia, body gripping traps in excess of 9.5 inches maybe used only in water or within 10 feet of water. Number two traps, which is the most common type of trap that is set, it is unlawful to set on land any trap with the jaw opening any larger than 5.75, again the trap that we're primarily concerned here with today is a trap that is seven inches by seven inches, so it goes beyond what Georgia will allow. In Pennsylvania, you're permitted to trap four bears using body gripping traps, baited by the gripping traps, when all the following conditions are met, you have an artificial curby which is an artificial enclosure that this traps are set in, that is placed within an established water way fishpond or marsh or pond. Entrance to the artificial cabby does not exceed 50 square inches, you can kind of picture that in your

mind, it's probably smaller than a sheet of note book paper, it can be like 7*7 inches or 5*10 inches. Traps of no larger than six and half, or six and a half can be used. Triggering mechanism must be at least seven inches from the entrance, an artificial cabby must be anchored in such a way as it cannot be moved or rolled over. North Carolina's trapping laws as far as this type of trap is concerned, are a lot more lenient in those areas, one of the things that this bill does is to eliminate a bucket set, I don't this the bucket set, I think the Director of Wildlife can help me with this or staff, I don't think a bucket set has been mandated in statute as much as it was as a rule from wildlife division. Mr. Chairman,. Yes. Yes your Honor, Thank you Senator [xx], I think you have explained it well. This was a great bill in 2013, it's even a better a bill now and I would make a move for favorable report. Thank you Sir. I do have one amendment that I would like to project. Alright Please. Senator RayBan I believe is going to bring forth this committee. Yes I have a clarifying amendment on some dimensions, staff already has it in front of them it simply takes, on page 1 lines 32 to 34 and puts words in one half inches, must be [xx] to stop the trap is at least four feet above the ground. It really just clarifies how the process will work is being passed on right now. Thank you chairman [xx] please. This amendment does couple of things it makes the law I think clear in its enforcement, it takes away some of the contradictions, some of the law actually contradicted itself in some places and I think this will make it a clear our way, I can keep going or I can be getting some questions on the amendment? Yes sir, Senator Tommy Tucker Senator Cook just comment I don't have any question of this just reminding senator Andason that with this in day [xx] but a soon rejection he is no longer in the house he is in the senate will leave and move on here Thank you for your comment. Senator Tom Markena. Senator Mclnnis Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, I've been a spokesman and outdoors man, official man and [xx] all my life and I have just turned 61 year's old and I've read this Bill about three times and no disrespect, Senator Sansnord [sp] but I'm absolutely confused one set of rules for the private players another one for the private lands, I can see why lands and [xx] officer is going to pull her hair out the way I rated it, it deters someone from trapping most of these animals such as the cats which are running rabid in my part of the State Can you Excuse me, is this on the amendment? I'm just going over the whole thing because he wants to expedite today so I'll Can we talked about the amendment [xx] that first. I apologize.  Any other comments on the amendment? Hearing none, seeing none all those I favor say aye, Aye. All oppose say the same. Thank you, now let's go to [xx] as amended, Alright, Senator [xx]   Thank you, and what I would like to say the addition spare some time that would be put upon someone to adhere to this I think is very confusing and I don't know exactly what we are trying to do and I appreciate and trying to make something happen, but I'm just totally confused. I'm sorry.  Perhaps Senator Ford [xx] enlighten that's all. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that's going to happen here. Snyder Sanderson based upon your knowledge and your experience in the field, do you feel that this trapping method shows their respect and appreciation for the animals that have given up their lives for this particular bill? Mr. Chairman. Please Senator Ford what I am trying to do with this bill is to decrease as much as possible collateral damage with these traps, and that is animals that were never intended to be caught in these traps that are caught for whatever reason. That is the main purpose of this, I can show you pictures of what [xx] looks, what it does, but I'm not going to do that. It is a trap that is designed to kill and to

kill quickly, and it was specifically designed, I think for the beaver population to be set underwater, as I said it's kind of moved up on the land side. But I'm not sure that I answered your question but the main purpose is to again, to decrease collateral damage for unintended animals to be caught in traps. Senator Smith-Ingram. Thank you Mr. Chair. Senator Sanderson in mentioning collateral damage, I just want to be sure that in addition to wildlife, I guess more importantly, the way the trap mechanism, the dimension are setup, is it safe so that small children are not harmed in any way should they encounter one of this counter bear traps? Please. Senator Smith-Ingram I think that it would greatly reduce that possibility, I have seen a prototype of what this might look like and it is designed to keep large animals in a, yes I would say even children for me unable to reach the triggering mechanism that would set this strap off. Thank you Chair. Andrew Brock. Thank you Mr. Chairman, senator Sanderson, Senator [xx] brings up a very good point we have a epidemic No far cults in our area most main purpose of keeping people from being able to get lid of this problem on their own private land, says section registration you have public land in here but now we are telling people what they can do on their own private land.  Again senator Bem . Again this is not designed to eliminate anything. It just designed to make it safer. I don't know that we there is no way now that we need to eliminate entirely how we control the country population cause I know it can be years of a growing problem and that is not what this bill is designed to do then I don't if there are questions about that I would be glad to talk to someone on how we can make things easier a problem property ownership have that kind of problem, take care of the situation. Thank you, we are running out of three questions from senator Bem.  Thank you Mr. Chairman I had Senator Sanderson I had run a bill relativity to county trapping sometime back, but I din't give a percel but I don't remember what the objection was and I think I heard you say, one group or some group had objection to this bill. It was the trappers. The Trappers Association. Are they prepared to speak or say anything I know you're time but I hate to not at least hear their point of view as. Alright, anybody in the audience that want to quickly speak you got one minute. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Please please state your name and who you represent. Yes Sir, my name is Tony White and I'm President of North Carolina Trappers Association. I 'm here today to oppose this bill. In my opinion, it seeks to fix the problem that really does not exist counter-back type traps are used to control Racoons, Groundhogs Passam [xx] cross the State. Raccoons, Skunks and Appasams are prolific nest raiders and responsible for depredation of brown nesting birds such as quail, turkey and water file. These animals most can also carry rabies. In this [xx] it proves the trapper with a safe way to catch and dispatch them. Property owners who depend on wildlife professional animal damage control agents. We'll also be greatly impacted by this bill. Capturing animals who are used to this trap will be more difficult and more time consuming, this will result in higher cost to homeowners and landowners. I respectfully ask that you vote No on this this bill, thank you. Thank you, is anyone for this bill in the public that would like to speak quickly? Mr. Chairman, my name is [xx] Thank you from [xx] County and support this bill and for the reasons that the Senator has already expressed that [xx] if I could add anything to what he's already said this is a kill trap, we're having our hunting dogs and one of my neighbors had written [xx] a little 13

year old girl had one caught in the trap and killed, and it was illegally said it was on their property, and so was the traps to cover hunting dogs. I distributed pictures of those dogs in 13, I believe it was and for those reasons it's a safety, for hunting dogs and pets of all kinds and anyone that might happen by that would get their hand or arm or foot in this traps that's the reason I support it. Thank you Sir, which group by the way did you represent? I am the President of the East and North Carolina Fox Owners Association. Thank you very much. We have run out of time I'm sorry we're going to have to move along here, can we vote now? Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we accept the amended version of this bill. Thank you sir. All in favor of the motion say Aye. Aye. All against? No. Thank you the bill passes. We're adjourned.