Some Raleigh officials balk at proposed wild animal pet ban

"Some have made light of this incident," Knight said Tuesday. "You thought it was funny only if you didn't live in the neighborhood."

Raleigh is the only major city in North Carolina without any regulations on owning wild or dangerous animals, he added, noting that some locales have had rules on the books for decades.

A draft of the proposal defines a wild or dangerous animal as a "non-domesticated animal, which is normally found in the wild state, is inherently dangerous to persons or property, and which generally does not live in or about the habitation of humans." It cites as examples "medically significant venomous snakes," lions, tigers, bears and wolves, as well as squirrels, ducks, geese and crows.

"Raleigh is not a farm. It's not in the country anymore," Knight said. "Those of us living in Raleigh have enough to deal with than to have to worry about what kind of dangerous animal our neighbor in the next apartment or next door might be harboring in their home or yard."

Anyone who currently owns an animal considered wild or dangerous would have 90 days to remove it from the city. After that, any violations would bring $500 daily fines per animal for ownership and $100 daily fines for feeding any wild or dangerous animals.

But Councilwoman Nicole Stewart compared the ordinance to "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut." The idea went far beyond the zebra cobra issue to proscribe feeding deer and ducks, she said.

Councilwoman Stormie Forte agreed that the proposal needed to be tailored narrowly, saying the current form could penalize people for not putting their grills away quickly because that could then be a source of food for scavenging animals.

"With the amount of growth we've had in the city of Raleigh, we as humans have moved into the natural habitat of a lot of animals in the area," Forte said.

Even Mayor Mary-Ann Baldwin said she would be in violation of the ordinance because she regularly feeds feral cats near her home.

Knight said the feeding prohibitions – the ordinance would exempt bird feeders – would help limit potential prey for bears that wander through Raleigh and coyotes that increasingly visit the city and would keep the animals away from areas with lots of pedestrian or vehicular traffic.

Owner of zebra cobra pleads guilty to not reporting its escape, turns over $35,000 worth of snakes

Several people who spoke during the public comment portion of the City Council meeting also objected to the wide-ranging proposal, calling it a knee-jerk reaction to an isolated incident.

"This will just drive people underground. It won't be good for people, and it won't be good for the animals," said Dan Breeding, a wildlife educator known as "Dan the Animal Man."

"This proposed ban is overreaching, reactionary and it is unethical," said Nathan Shepard, a biologist who works with venomous snakes. "If you look at facts and data, the public is safe."

Dr. Dan Johnson, a Raleigh veterinarian who cares for some animals that would become illegal under the current version of the ordinance, agrees.

"They say 'wild and dangerous animals' and then, in the next sentence, squirrels, ducks, geese, crows. There’s a lot of room in here for misinterpretation," Johnson said. "It’s just so much more complicated than saying, 'Get out of here in 90 days,' and that’s what’s frustrating."

Jen Davis, director of Code Venom Trauma Solutions, which helped capture the zebra cobra, also said she's against an all-out ban on wild animals as pets just because of one owner's "immature mistake."

The City Council voted unanimously to send the draft ordinance to Growth and Natural Resources Committee for further discussion and refinement. There was no word on when it might come back before the full council.