"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen." Dennis Prager

Rhode Island Senate Bill 140, introduced by Senators Tassoni, Lombardo, Doyle, Perry and DeVall, is just another in a long list of legislation that is directed at taking away the American people's right to own the pet of their choice.

The major issue with this bill is in who is allowed to enforce the regulations, and the definitions included in the bill, as well as the allowing of a private citizen to conduct an illegal search and seizure.

SB140 allows the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RISPCA) to enter your property, without authorization or warrant, and enforce( and possibly seize your animals) this regulation. In other words, a private citizen with no designated training or knowledge has the same authority as a law enforcement officer. Would this constitute an illegal search and seizure?

Rhode Island House Bill 6119, enacted in 2001, "created the term guardian to mean a person who possesses, has title to or an interest in, harbors or has control, custody or possession of an animal (defined as any living creature except a human being) and who is responsible for an animal's safety and well-being. In adopting this term, Rhode Island became the first state to recognize that an individual is the guardian of a companion animal (not merely owner)." In other words, this companion animal is your personal property.

According to Rhode Island General Law § 11-41-1 – Theft, Embezzlement, False Pretenses, and Misappropriation – the stealing, taking, or possessing of ANY property of value that does not belong to you or was not rightfully obtained, is deemed larceny. If the value of the property stolen, embezzled, misappropriated, or obtained by other fraudulent or criminal means, exceeds Five Hundred Dollars ($500), OR is a firearm, regardless of value, then the defendant faces up to Ten (10) years in prison, and/or a fine not to exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000). If the value of the property is less than Five hundred Dollars ($500), then the defendant faces up to One (1) year in prison and/or a fine not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500). The penalties are worse if the victim is over the age of sixty-five (65).

Rhode Island's SB140 states:

* Keep any dog outside, tethered, penned, caged, fenced or otherwise confined for more than one
   hour without access to an outdoor housing facility unless the person having charge is outside
   with the dog;

* Keep any dog outside either tethered, penned, caged, fenced or otherwise confined without
   access to an outdoor housing facility when the ambient temperature is beyond the industry
   standard for the weather safety scale as set forth in the most recent adopted version of the
   Tufts Animal Care and Condition Weather Safety Scale if the dog is showing signs of poor health
   due to the weather conditions;

* Keep any dog on a permanent tether less than six feet long;

* Tether a dog with a choke-type collar or prong-type collar;

* Keep any dog tethered for more than 10 hours during a 24- hour period or keep any dog
   confined in a pen, cage or other outdoor housing structure for more than 14 hours during any
   24-hour period; or

* Fail to provide proper food, proper water, or proper veterinary care.

The exemptions to this are:

* If the tethering or confinement is authorized for medical reasons in writing by a veterinarian
   licensed in Rhode Island which must be renewed annually and an outdoor housing facility is
   provided;

* If such tethering or confinement is authorized in writing by an animal control officer; or

* The following facilities: a training facility, grooming facility, commercial boarding kennel,
   licensed pet shop, animal shelter, municipal pound or veterinary facility.

Persons found in violation of this bill would receive a warning for the first violation. Second and further violations would be charged as animal cruelty acts, and would be subject to a sentence of up to 11 months in jail, or a fine of $500.00, or both, for each offense cited. It is not clearly defined in the bill if an animal control officer is to accompany the RISPCA upon entering the property. One other item; the official governmental agency for this bill is defined as: the Board is the "Rabies Control Board" and the Department is the "Department of Environmental Management" or its successor.

While the bill is allegedly "directed" at dog owners (An Act Relating to Animals and Animal Husbandry- Dogs), the definition of an animal is stated as: " 'Animal" and 'animals' means every living creature except a human being." Portions of the regulations state "dog" and portions of the regulations state "animal." The definition cited in this bill for pets is: "Pets" means domesticated animals kept in close contact with humans, which include, but may not be limited to dogs, cats, ferrets, equines, llamas, goats, sheep, and swine. Do you see the potential problems that will arise should this bill pass? Considering that all 50 states currently have animal cruelty laws, and the federal government has the Animal Welfare Act, would this just be another piece of legislation giving the animal rights groups another piece of your right as a citizen?

Have any of you heard the song "When You've Got A Hammer, Everything Looks Like A Nail"? It would seem that when it comes to pet legislation, the animal rights groups are the hammer, and if you have any care, contact or control of an animal, YOU are the nail. And the beat goes on....