Why Language Matters for Your Dog’s Future
by Sam Basso, professional dog trainer – SamTheDogTrainer.com & Poochmaster.blogspot.com . I am not an attorney and nothing in this article is legal advice. I’m writing as a working dog trainer, summarizing what legal and ethical experts have said so that ordinary dog owners can understand what’s at stake.
The bond we have with our dogs sits on a legal foundation
When I walk into a home for a lesson, what I see first isn’t “property”—I see a dog who is part of a family. But whether we like it or not, the law has to call that dog something.
In the United States and most of the world, dogs are legally classified as personal property—a special, emotionally important kind of property, but property all the same. Courts from the late 1800s onward, starting with cases like Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton Railroad (1897), have repeatedly treated dogs as property that people own, while still allowing governments to regulate dogs to protect public safety and prevent cruelty. Liberation Resources+1
That may sound cold, but there’s a very practical benefit:
- Property status is what triggers most of your constitutional protections—especially under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments—when someone seizes, destroys, or interferes with your dog. When police shoot a dog or a city orders a dog destroyed, federal courts analyze that as the seizure or destruction of property. Solutions Based Family Law
Over the last few decades, though, a new language has crept into ordinances, campaigns, and activist materials: instead of owners, they talk about guardians and companions. And that language is increasingly being tied to vegan ethics, climate politics, and broader efforts to reshape how animals fit into human society.
I’m not a supporter of veganism, and I’m not a supporter of pet “guardianship” as a legal model. I respect people who choose vegan diets, but in my view veganism is not a good enough rationale to overhaul the legal foundation that currently protects both people and dogs.
Let’s unpack why.
Where did “pet ownership” and “pet guardianship” come from?
Ownership has ancient roots. Roman law and English common law treated animals—livestock and dogs alike—as chattels: movable property. Early American law carried that forward, adding anti-cruelty statutes over time so that you could own animals but not torture them. Modern overviews of pet law still describe companion animals as property, even while acknowledging that courts now talk about their “special” emotional value. Solutions Based Family Law
Guardianship, by contrast, is a modern activist project. Beginning around 2000, animal-rights and animal-welfare groups launched “guardian” campaigns to replace the word owner in local codes. Boulder, Colorado was one of the first cities to amend its ordinances so residents became “pet guardians” rather than owners, a change that city officials themselves described as “symbolic.” Outdoor News+1
Rhode Island later amended parts of its animal statutes so that “owner” and “guardian” are used interchangeably and defined to mean the same thing. Justia Law+1 West Hollywood, California adopted similar wording, again expressly as a symbolic reminder that animals deserve humane treatment. Los Angeles Times
A detailed review by the Cat Fanciers’ Association notes that, over roughly the first decade of this campaign, only about 30 local jurisdictions adopted “guardian” language, and wherever it appears, the statutes define guardian as legally equivalent to owner. The Cat Fanciers’ Association
So right now, in most places:
- Your dog is still property in the eyes of the law.
- “Guardian” language in ordinances is mostly rhetorical and does not grant your dog human-style rights.
But if it’s all symbolic, why does this debate matter?
Owners, guardians, and parents: very different legal roles
From a legal standpoint, these words aren’t just vocabulary; they point to very different frameworks of responsibility and power.
- Parents have constitutionally protected rights to raise their children, but the state can override them in abuse or neglect cases under a “best interests of the child” standard.
- Guardians (for minors or incapacitated adults) have strong duties and fewer personal rights – courts can step in more easily and second-guess their decisions.
- Owners of property have the broadest control, limited mainly by specific statutes (like animal cruelty laws).
Animal-law scholars have started to ask: what would it look like if we imported “best interests of the animal” into everyday decisions about pets?
A 2020 article in the journal Animals by Carol Gray and Peter Fordyce examines how “best interests” standards already appear in UK veterinary decisions about companion animals. They show how vets and owners sometimes rely on a patient-like model, balancing the animal’s interests with the owner’s values and finances. PMC
Another line of scholarship, including work summarized in the Texas A&M Law Review, explores whether dogs might someday be treated more like legal wards, with courts weighing their welfare independently of their owner’s wishes, especially in disputes or high-stakes medical decisions. Texas A&M Law Scholarship+1
Some legal commentators at AnimalLaw.info have asked outright whether it matters, legally, if we call ourselves owners or guardians when making health-care decisions for our animals. Their conclusion is interesting: the better way to protect animals is not to rename the relationship, but to strengthen specific veterinary-care and cruelty statutes.Animal Law
I agree with that approach. We can and should improve welfare rules. But that’s very different from replacing ownership with guardianship wholesale.
What could dog owners actually lose under a serious guardianship regime?
Right now, because your dog is property, you enjoy a cluster of constitutional and statutory protections:
- The Fourth Amendment helps protect against unreasonable seizures—courts treat the unjustified killing or impoundment of a dog by authorities as the seizure or destruction of property. Solutions Based Family Law
- Due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before the state takes or destroys your dog, except in emergencies.
- Property-based tort and contract law let you recover damages if someone injures your dog, or if a vet commits malpractice.
If “guardian” ever stopped being symbolic and became a real legal status, more like a child-guardian relationship, several pain points appear:
- Medical decision-making could be second-guessed.
Gray and Fordyce already describe “best interests” conflicts in real veterinary cases—like disagreements over aggressive treatment versus euthanasia. PMC+1 Under a stronger guardianship model, a court or animal-advocate could potentially override an owner’s decision about surgery, euthanasia, or experimental treatment by arguing it’s not in the dog’s “best interests.” How would you like it if a court ruled that you had to use euthanasia instead of a medical treatment, and you disagreed? - Training methods and daily management could be litigated.
Behavior and welfare research increasingly focuses on choice, agency, and positive welfare states. The updated Five Domains model emphasizes “agency” and behavioral opportunities as part of assessing good welfare. Frontiers+2IAABC Foundation+2 Many professional bodies (including CCPDT and IAABC-aligned trainers) now frown on or restrict certain aversive tools. If the law treated you as a guardian with fiduciary duties, those evolving professional norms could be used as a legal yardstick: a training tool that a board calls “non-LIMA” might be framed not just as a disagreement in methodology, but as a breach of your duties to the animal. Politicians and demagogues should not be dictating policy or procedures for training dogs when we know none of them know about how to properly do behavior modification or training, and think of the harms that could result. - Breeding, sale, and rehoming could require permission.
Guardianship language has already been wrapped into some policy proposals about mandatory spay/neuter, limits on litters, and stricter control over who can adopt or rehome animals. In Europe, new EU-wide rules for dogs and cats are moving toward harmonized welfare standards, mandatory microchipping, breeding limits, and bans on extreme conformational traits in shows. Food Safety+2European Sting+2 Those rules so far still respect private owners, but a true guardianship model could justify even more intrusive controls over breeding and transfer. Imagine a court system that practically weds a dog to a human and you have to engage is some kind of a divorce proceeding in order to rehome a dog; think of the effects on animal welfare organizations. - Your ability to recover losses could shrink.
If the law stopped treating your dog as your property, takings and property-damage claims would be harder to bring. You might gain some “sentimental” or “emotional distress” damages in theory, but lose the clear, well-developed property-based remedies that currently exist. - Government intervention would become easier, not harder.
The more your relationship looks like a guardian to a ward, the easier it is for the state to say, “We’re stepping in for the dog’s own good.” That might sound fine when we imagine saving animals from real abuse. But it also opens the door to enforcement against ordinary owners over training style, diet (raw vs kibble; this toy vs. that; this walk around the block, not that; etc.), or unconventional but humane management choices.
As a trainer, I already see how emotionally charged disagreements over methods can become. Turning those disagreements into legal weapons is a recipe for conflict, not better dog welfare.
Welfare science and ethics already support better care within an ownership model
None of this means we should be complacent about welfare. Quite the opposite.
Recent welfare science has moved beyond just preventing suffering to also measuring positive welfare and agency—the dog’s ability to make choices, engage in meaningful activities, and feel secure. The expanded Five Domains Model explicitly incorporates agency and behavioral interactions as a separate domain when assessing welfare. Frontiers+1
Cognitive and ethical work on dogs, such as Benz-Schwarzburg and colleagues’ paper “How Dogs Perceive Humans and How Humans Should Treat Their Pet Dogs,” argues that dogs have rich social cognition and can form expectations about how we treat them, which creates moral responsibilities for us as owners. PMC+1
Similarly, discussions in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s “Animals and Ethics” entry show that you can recognize animals as morally considerable beings without granting them legal personhood or stripping people of property rights. CORE Scholar+1
In the training world, consent-style approaches—teaching dogs to participate willingly in handling, grooming, and husbandry—are gaining traction, and having both positive and harmful side effects. Articles in the IAABC Journal explore how supporting autonomy and choice can improve emotional wellness in companion dogs without any need to relabel owners as guardians. IAABC FOUNDATION JOURNAL+1
In other words: we already have the tools to treat dogs as feeling, thinking beings while keeping the clear, protective structure of ownership. Guardianship is not required for compassion.
Where veganism, climate policy, and “15-minute cities” enter the picture
Veganism, animal-rights activism, and some strands of climate politics sit in the background of many guardianship campaigns.
- Philosophers influenced by Peter Singer and others argue that using animals as property is inherently wrong, and that true ethical consistency requires moving toward abolition of animal use—no meat, no dairy, no leather, no honey from bees, no animals in entertainment or work. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy+1
- Direct-action groups like the Animal Liberation Front explicitly reject animal ownership as “slavery” and promote the idea that animals should not be property at all. Wikipedia
On the climate side, it’s true that some policy proposals aim to reduce meat consumption as part of climate strategies. This is an ongoing controversy that is not at all settled in the law, science, culturally or regarding individual religious beliefs. But current mainstream measures focus on:
- Emissions accounting and reporting
- Incentives for lower-impact farming
- Plant-based product promotion
They generally do not create legal guardianship over companion animals or ban meat altogether.
The “15-minute city” concept—designing neighborhoods so that most daily needs are within a 15-minute walk or bike ride—is a planning idea aimed at reducing car dependence and improving quality of life. Credible sources emphasize mobility, land use, and services access, not diet enforcement or mandatory veganism, even though conspiracy theories online sometimes claim otherwise. Films For Action+1
So, are these efforts being used as a “back door” to impose veganism on everyone?
- In animal-rights circles, yes, some activists openly see guardianship language, pet-rights bills, and harsh restrictions on breeding or training tools as incremental steps toward a world where animals are no longer property and humans no longer use animal products.
- In mainstream legislation, especially in the new US and EU pet-welfare proposals, the focus is on traceability, minimum welfare standards, and cracking down on illegal or irresponsible breeding and trade. These rules are about how we keep animals, not whether people must be vegan. GlobalPETS+2Food Safety+2
A useful parallel comes from outside the animal context: policy analysts have warned that long-dormant or obscure laws can sometimes be repurposed to achieve controversial goals. That doesn’t mean every welfare regulation hides a vegan agenda—but it does justify paying close attention to how legal concepts evolve, are later reused, and the motives behind what might appear to be benign efforts at improving animal welfare.
My own take is this:
- Yes, some activists consciously view guardianship as part of a long-term strategy to delegitimize animal ownership and eventually align the law with vegan ethics.
- No, current pet-welfare bills in the US and EU are not, on their face, “secret veganism.” They’re about conditions for breeding, sale, and housing, not banning meat or pets.
That’s precisely why we should be very careful about which ideas we adopt. You can support strong welfare standards and oppose cruelty without endorsing a legal theory whose endgame is that your dog is no longer your dog.
Consider The Dred Scott Decision: Courts Can Trigger Backlash When They Get Ahead of—or Against—Social Consensus
Dred Scott is considered the classic example of a court trying to impose a sweeping national resolution on the most divisive social issue of the time.
But instead of settling anything, the Court:
- froze compromise,
- inflamed both sides, and
- delegitimized the judiciary itself.
This is sometimes summarized as:
When courts try to settle moral or cultural questions that society isn’t ready to settle, they risk destroying the legitimacy necessary for a functioning legal system.
The same caution is used in textbooks discussing other controversial rulings—not to judge those rulings’ moral correctness, but to illustrate how courts can become political lightning rods when they step into unresolved cultural battles.
Courts Can Misread the Nation and Invalidate Longstanding Practices Overnight
Taney believed he was “restoring balance” and preventing conflict by affirming property rights and limiting federal power.
Instead, he misjudged:
- the moral evolution of the country,
- the growing Northern resistance to slavery expansion,
- religious arguments against human bondage, and
- the political reality that compromise was already fragile.
Courts, in this view, must be careful about:
- Invalidating widely accepted practices too abruptly,
- Imposing a minority worldview on the majority,
- Reading ideology into constitutional text, and
- Resolving disputes that require political negotiation instead of judicial decree.
When Courts Try to Force a “Final Settlement,” They May Create the Very Crisis They Intended to Avoid
Taney said his opinion would “end the slavery question forever.”
Instead, it made war more likely.
The broader warning is:
Judges cannot force social unity where deep cultural, religious, or moral divides already exist.
Courts exist to interpret law, not to engineer society.
The Core Cautionary Tale
Whether one agrees with the policy implications or not, the lesson historians extract is:
Courts are most vulnerable when they:
- move faster than public consensus,
- try to settle moral or cultural issues by judicial fiat,
- invalidate long-standing practices without broad social agreement, or
- enter political spaces that require incremental, negotiated solutions.
In such moments, the judiciary risks:
- losing legitimacy,
- becoming a catalyst for conflict,
- polarizing the country further, and
- provoking resistance rather than compliance.
Dred Scott is widely viewed as the worst-case scenario of a court misjudging the nation it governs. AND FORCING A SOLUTION ON DOG OWNERS HAS BROADER IMPLICATIONS THAN JUST ANIMAL WELFARE… so the same warnings go for politicians, animal welfare advocates, and pet owners.
Why veganism alone is not a good enough reason to change the law on ownership
I’ve worked with dogs for over 25 years. In real life, dogs benefit when a specific human is clearly responsible for them, empowered to act, and legally protected in that role.
Vegan ethics start from a different premise: that using animals at all is exploitation and should be phased out. That’s a valid personal philosophy, but it is not shared by the majority of people, and it conflicts with deeply held religious and cultural traditions across the world. Comprehensive surveys of religious and cultural attitudes show that while many traditions teach compassion for animals, most still see meat, animal work, and human stewardship as legitimate parts of human life. National Agricultural Library+1
When we build law, especially constitutional law, we need foundations stable enough to serve everyone: vegans, meat-eaters, religious minorities, farmers, city-dwelling pet owners, and everyone in between.
The ownership model—backed by clear cruelty statutes and updated welfare science—does that. It says:
- You own your dog.
- Because you own your dog, you have strong rights and serious responsibilities.
- The state can intervene when you abuse or neglect, but it can’t casually insert itself between you and your dog over mere disagreement.
Guardianship inspired by vegan or abolitionist ethics takes a very different path. It ultimately aims to limit and eventually eliminate human use of animals, and it does so by quietly pushing animals out of the category of property—and, with that, out of the protection of the robust legal tools tied to property rights.
I respect individuals who choose veganism. But I don’t believe that worldview is a sound basis for rewriting the legal structure that currently protects the bond between ordinary people and their dogs.
Never forget what happened in Denver and their inhumane Pit Bull Ban:
This was, and still is, a real and contentious chapter in Denver’s history. In 1989, the city enacted a strict breed-specific legislation (BSL) ordinance—Denver Revised Municipal Code § 8-55—prohibiting the ownership, possession, or harboring of “pit bulls.” The definition included American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and mixed-breed dogs with similar physical traits. Although prompted by several high-profile dog attacks, the ordinance applied broadly and made no distinction between well-behaved family pets and dogs with an actual bite history.
Seizures and Enforcement
Under the ordinance, animal control officers were permitted to impound any dog suspected of being a pit bull immediately upon discovery. In many situations, no warrant was required if the dog was at large or visible from a public place. Enforcement typically involved proactive patrols, follow-up on neighbor complaints, and visits to homes where a suspected pit bull had been reported or seen in a yard.
When the ban was reinstated in 1989 after a brief state-level pause, the results were immediate. During the first month alone, roughly 150 dogs identified as pit bulls were seized and euthanized using sodium pentobarbital. Over the following decades, thousands of healthy, non-aggressive dogs—many with no bite history—were impounded and destroyed unless their owners could prove relocation outside Denver within a short timeframe. Local reporting has estimated that Denver spent more than $100 million enforcing the ordinance between 1989 and 2020, despite limited evidence that the ban meaningfully reduced the overall rate of dog-bite incidents.
Euthanasia Without Bite History
The ordinance required the automatic destruction of any impounded pit bull unless the owner removed the dog from the city. As a result, euthanasia decisions were based solely on appearance or presumed breed, not on behavior. Many family pets, including puppies and senior dogs, were killed even though they had never displayed aggression.
Past Constitutional Challenges and Outcomes
Many people believed the ordinance was unconstitutional, but courts repeatedly upheld it as a lawful exercise of Denver’s municipal authority.
Colorado Dog Fanciers Ass’n v. City & County of Denver (1991)
In this key case, owners, breeders, and humane organizations challenged the ban on several grounds:
- substantive due process (claiming the law was arbitrary),
- procedural due process (challenging impoundment and euthanasia procedures),
- equal protection (arguing pit bulls were unfairly targeted),
- vagueness (arguing the breed definition was unclear), and
- First Amendment concerns (relating to advocacy for affected breeds).
The trial court required Denver to strengthen due-process protections—such as placing the burden of breed identification on the city and requiring hearings before euthanasia—but upheld the ordinance. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the ruling, finding that the ban was rationally related to public safety, was not unconstitutionally vague, and did not violate equal protection. Claims for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were also rejected.
This decision largely settled the ordinance’s constitutionality within Colorado.
Later Challenges (including a 2008 federal case)
A separate federal lawsuit filed in 2008 asserted procedural due process violations and vagueness in enforcement. While the court dismissed most claims, it required Denver to defend aspects of its enforcement protocols, giving challengers a narrow procedural win. However, the ordinance itself remained intact. The Animal Legal Defense Fund submitted an amicus brief criticizing the ban’s structure, but no federal court overturned it, and the
U.S. Supreme Court declined to review it.
Thus, the ban remained in force—legally upheld but publicly controversial—until voters repealed it decades later.
Current Status (as of December 2025)
Denver repealed the breed ban via Ballot Measure 2J in November 2020, with approximately 66% voter approval. The repeal took effect in January 2021. Pit bulls are now permitted in Denver but are regulated through a Breed-Restricted Permit system administered by Denver Animal Protection (DAP). Owners must provide:
- veterinary verification of breed classification,
- proof of vaccinations,
- proof of spay/neuter,
- microchip identification, and
- liability insurance.
Violations may still result in impoundment and possible euthanasia, but only after a due-process hearing. The repeal reflects a broader shift away from BSL nationwide, with cities such as Aurora (repealed in late 2024) and Commerce City adopting similar reforms.
Hypothetical Impact Under a “Guardianship” Legal Model
If Denver or another jurisdiction attempted to reintroduce a pit bull ban today—and the law formally described pet keepers as “guardians” rather than “owners”—the constitutional landscape could shift in the city’s favor.
Although dogs remain legal property for federal constitutional purposes, guardianship language emphasizes duties rather than rights. This change could weaken property-based constitutional protections, including:
- Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizure,
- Fifth Amendment takings claims, and
- Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
A guardianship framework could make it easier for the government to justify impoundment or euthanasia as acting in the “best interests” of the animal. Owners might also face reduced standing to challenge enforcement actions because their legal relationship to the dog would be defined as custodial rather than proprietary. In practice, this could make a modern breed ban even harder to challenge than the ordinances litigated in the 1990s and 2000s.
Practical takeaways for dog owners and trainers
So what should you, as a dog owner or fellow professional, do with all of this?
- Support strong, specific welfare rules—not fuzzy status changes.
Back laws that clearly require adequate housing, vet care, and humane handling. Be cautious about proposals that merely swap “owner” for “guardian” without explaining the legal consequences. - Watch how “best interests” is used.
In veterinary medicine, “best interests of the animal” can be a helpful ethical tool. But if it becomes a legal standard that routinely overrides informed owner decisions, we’ve gone too far. - Be wary of the promotion of those promoting unlimited agency and consent in training and ownership.
- Pay attention to local and state proposals.
Many guardianship campaigns happen at the city or state level. Read the fine print. If a bill or ordinance says “guardian,” check whether it also quietly changes your rights. - Keep the conversation civil.
I don’t want to slam vegans, and I don’t think that helps dogs. We can disagree on the ultimate goals while working together on practical improvements in welfare standards. This is about dog ownership, not what legal choices you make over what you consume.
As long as I’m in this business, I’m going to keep arguing for a simple principle:
Dogs should be treated according to the best practices of animal welfare, ethics, medical care, and good science, and as strongly protected property in law. Our goal: dogs belong in a home with an owner, not in a court of law.
That combination preserves our ability to care for them, train them, and share our lives with them—without opening the door to constant interference or using them as pawns in larger ideological battles.
Again, I’m not an attorney. If you’re facing a specific dispute or policy proposal in your area, talk with a lawyer who understands animal law in your state. But as a dog trainer who lives every day at the intersection of dogs, humans, and rules, I can tell you this much: when ownership goes away, the dog doesn’t gain a voice—bureaucrats do.
And that’s not better for the average dog or the average family.
Selected Bibliography (for your WordPress post)
You can paste this as a references section at the bottom of the article.
- Benz-Schwarzburg, J., Monso, S., & Huber, L. (2020). How Dogs Perceive Humans and How Humans Should Treat Their Pet Dogs: Linking Cognition With Ethics.Frontiers in Psychology. PMC
- Gray, C., & Fordyce, P. (2020). Legal and Ethical Aspects of “Best Interests” Decision-Making for Medical Treatment of Companion Animals in the UK. Animals, 10(6), 1009. PMC
- Littlewood, K. E., Heslop, M. V., & Cobb, M. L. (2023). The Agency Domain and Behavioral Interactions: Assessing Positive Animal Welfare Using the Five Domains Model. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 10, 1284869. Frontiers+1
- Simmons, K. A. (2013). What Is the Next Step for Companion Pets in the Legal System? Texas A&M Law Review. Texas A&M Law Scholarship+1
- Wilson, S. (2001/2010). Animals and Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. CORE Scholar+1
- Animal Welfare Act. USDA National Agricultural Library & APHIS consolidated “Blue Book” regulations. animalnerd.com+1
- Protecting the Welfare of Dogs and Cats. European Commission – Companion animal welfare and traceability initiative (2023–2025) and provisional agreement on new rules (2025). Food Safety+2EU Newsletter+2
- “US, EU Lawmakers Push for New Pet Protection Laws.” GlobalPETS, November 19, 2025. GlobalPETS+1
- “Making Decisions About Our Animals’ Health Care: Does It Matter Whether We Are Owners or Guardians?” AnimalLaw.info. Animal Law
- “Animals and Ethics 101: Thinking Critically About Animal Rights.” (e-book summarizing key positions in animal ethics). dspace.lib.hawaii.edu+1
- “Animal Liberation Front.” Wikipedia entry (overview of ALF goals and tactics). Wikipedia
- “Use of the Terms Owner or Guardian.” Rhode Island General Laws, §4-19-21 and related cruelty statutes. Justia Law+1
- “Only in Boulder: Almost a Decade of Pet Guardianship.” Westword, 2009; plus Boulder ordinance coverage. Outdoor News+1
Sources Regarding the Denver Pit Bull Ban and Seizures
Statutes / Local Code
- Denver Revised Municipal Code § 8-55 (Pit Bull Ban, 1989; repealed 2020).
- Ballot Measure 2J, City & County of Denver (Election results, Nov. 3, 2020).
Court Cases (Public Domain)
- Colorado Dog Fanciers Ass’n v. City & County of Denver, 820 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1991).
- Related Denver District Court proceedings (1990–1991).
- Federal § 1983 challenges filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (e.g., 2008 filings—public docket).
Government Information
- Denver Animal Protection (DAP) Breed-Restricted Permit requirements.
- City and County of Denver: BSL FAQ and repeal materials (public information pages).
- Colorado Secretary of State election data.
News Sources
- Denver Post reporting on BSL enforcement and repeal.
- 9News and CBS Colorado coverage of the ban’s history and repeal.
- Westword reporting on cost estimates and enforcement controversies.
Advocacy Group Materials
- Animal Legal Defense Fund, amicus summaries in BSL cases.
- Best Friends Animal Society, BSL analysis and repeal data.