The Florida Bar

Florida Bar Journal

The Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Ban Greyhound Racing in Florida: The Time Is Now

Animal Law

Once every 20 years, Florida convenes a Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) to review and propose amendments to the Florida Constitution.1 The CRC process is the essence of participant democracy to change the law through constitutional means. The CRC also provides an avenue that allows ordinary citizens to address important issues that have proved difficult or impossible to address through legislative means. The Animal Law Section of The Florida Bar (ALS) supports the proposed amendment to ban greyhound racing for a number of reasons, which are more fully discussed below.2

In recent years, states across the country have shut down tracks and/or passed legislation prohibiting commercial greyhound racing.3 Yet, Florida remains the epicenter of the industry, with 12 of the 18 remaining tracks in the United States.4

Racing dogs at Florida’s tracks are confined for long periods of time and suffer frequent injuries, neglect, and death. Further, aside from the well-documented negative impact on the animals, the current state of the law in Florida comes at a significant financial cost. The law requires tracks to hold dog races in order to be entitled to offer other types of more popular gambling. This comes at a huge cost to taxpayers and the tracks, which lose money on racing. According to an independent study commissioned by the Florida Legislature, the state is losing between $1 million and $3.3 million annually because the regulatory costs associated with greyhound racing exceed the amount of revenue it generates.5

This article discusses the proposed constitutional amendment to end greyhound racing in Florida; controversial aspects of the industry that have led to the proposal; the legislative framework that has kept the industry alive; efforts to decouple greyhound racing from other forms of gambling; and why the issue is appropriately addressed in a constitutional amendment.

Background of the Proposed Amendment
On October 31, 2017, Florida Sen. Tom Lee, R-Thonotosassa, filed a proposed constitutional amendment to ban greyhound racing in Florida.6 Senator Lee was one of 37 members of the 2017-2018 CRC. A minimum of 22 commissioners must vote in favor of a measure for it to be placed on the ballot.7 On April 16, 2018, the CRC voted 27-10 in favor of placing the proposed amendment on the ballot.8 After initially voting to “couple” the greyhound amendment with other initiatives, including a ban on offshore oil drilling and a ban on public vaping, the CRC agreed to approve the greyhound amendment as a stand-alone measure.

As of this writing, however, the Second Circuit ruled to strike the amendment from the November ballot, finding that the ballot language was “misleadling.”9 That decision will be appealed. Hopefully, the measure will be placed back on the ballot and the people of Florida will have the opportunity to vote on the proposal. If the measure is placed on the ballot and it is approved by at least 60 percent of voters, the amendment would become part of our constitution10 and greyhound racing would be banned effective December 31, 2020.11

Greyhound Racing in Florida
Greyhound racing has been a part of Florida’s history for nearly 100 years. The first Florida greyhound track was built in 1922 in an area that eventually became Hialeah.12 Thereafter, tracks were established in St. Petersburg in 1925, Miami in 1926, Sanford-Orlando in 1927, Miami Beach in 1927, another in Miami in 1930, and in Tampa in 1932.13 In 1931, Florida became the first state to legalize wagering on greyhound races.14 the year 1932, there were six different tracks in operation that netted nearly $8 million in sales and $333,429.05 in state revenue.15 Today, Florida is one of only six states with active dog racing tracks.16 With 12 tracks in operation, Florida has more than any other state in the country. 17

In recent years, greyhound racing has been a source of controversy in Florida. It has been the subject of countless news stories, articles, and proposed and enacted legislation. There are multiple animal welfare groups in Florida, and elsewhere, that advocate for ending the sport. Kate MacFall, Florida state director of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and leading animal welfare advocate, stated the following with respect to greyhound racing in Florida:

“Greyhound protection and phasing out greyhound racing altogether are priorities for the HSUS in the Sunshine State. We work closely with GREY2K USA and countless other humane groups to put an end to greyhound racing and also push for industry reforms to help protect the dogs while they continue to race on the [12] tracks in Florida.”18

Some of the more controversial aspects of the industry include the dogs’ living conditions, incidents of neglect, the quality of their food, the use of steroids and other illicit drugs to increase performance, and the number of dogs that suffer injuries and/or death.

Racing greyhounds are confined in small cages for long periods of time. The minimum size requirement for their crates is “two feet wide, three feet long, and 32 inches high.”19 Florida does not have any regulations in place regarding the amount of turn-out time each greyhound must have per day.20 Therefore, it is difficult to determine exactly how much time the dogs spend in their crates. A former trainer from another state estimated that greyhounds receive less than three hours of turn-out time daily, resulting in more than 20 hours per day of confinement. 21 Though there is no statistical data available regarding turn-out time in Florida, an investigator from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, estimated that greyhounds are normally confined between 20 and 23 hours per day.22

Over the years, there have been several instances of alleged neglect involving racing greyhounds in Florida. For instance, in 2014 a trainer’s license was suspended after an investigation revealed that dogs in his care were living in unclean conditions and without adequate bedding.23 In 2013, a trainer was fined after an adoption supervisor reported that dogs she received from the trainer were in poor condition and infested with ticks.24 In 2010, a kennel that houses racing greyhounds was investigated after employees reported that it was far below acceptable standards.25 The investigator found four full buckets of dog feces in the turn-out pen area, and noted a strong smell of ammonia in the kennel, indicating that it was not being properly cleaned.26 A veterinarian reported that the ammonia smell was the product of the breakdown of a waste product found in urine, which has been shown to be detrimental to respiratory health in both humans and animals.27

Perhaps the most severe incident of neglect was reported in 2010. On October 28, 2010, DBPR received a call from an adoption agency that had recently received eight racing greyhounds who were believed to be severely underfed.28 This led to a subsequent investigation of the kennel from which the dogs came. Upon arrival at the kennel, the investigator noted the smell of rotting meat, which was apparently coming from a broken freezer.29 Upon further examination, the investigator discovered more than 20 dead greyhounds inside crates.30 The investigator also found two live greyhounds with duct tape wrapped so tightly around their necks it had to be unwrapped because it could not be cut off with a knife.31 As a result of the investigation, the owner of the kennel was arrested and charged with multiple felonies, and his license was permanently revoked.32

Racing greyhounds across the country are fed “4-D” meat.33 4-D meat “is derived from dying, diseased, disabled, and dead livestock that has been deemed unfit for human consumption.”34 “[T]he U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) state[d] that raw 4-D meat ‘may present a potential health hazard to the animals that consume it and to the people that handle it.’”35 In 2014, nearly 100 greyhounds at a kennel in Florida became ill, one died, and another was euthanized.36 Veterinarians with the Florida Department of Agriculture opined that the cause of the euthanized dog’s illness was bad meat.37 In 2017, greyhounds housed at a different kennel club experienced the same plight. Seventy-two greyhounds became ill and one died after eating bad meat.38

Another serious issue plaguing the industry is the use of anabolic steroids and other illicit substances. In 2013, steroids were found at a kennel housing greyhounds that race at two different tracks.39 A state investigator performing an inspection found a syringe with an attached needle that contained testosterone and other steroids.40 Recently, there has been a bipartisan effort pushing for a ban on the use of anabolic steroids in Florida greyhound racing.41 In early 2017, Florida Sen. Dana D. Young, R-Tampa, and Florida Rep. Carlos Guillermo-Smith, D-Orlando, filed two separate proposed bills that would have banned the use of all anabolic steroids in Florida greyhound racing,42 but neither bill passed.43 In October 2017, they renewed their efforts.44 The newly proposed bills would have amended F.S. §550.2415(1)(a) by adding a provision that would have made it a violation of the statute for a greyhound to test positive for anabolic steroids before or after a race.45 Neither bill was enacted.46

There have also been instances of greyhounds testing positive for cocaine and other substances. For example, in 2014, a trainer’s license was suspended after one of his dogs tested positive for a pain medication called Oxymorphone.47 In April 2017, a trainer had his pari-mutuel wagering license permanently revoked after one of the dogs he trained tested positive for cocaine and several others tested positive for metabolites of cocaine.48 And, in 2016-2017, four separate administrative complaints were filed against a trainer after six of the dogs she trained tested positive for Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine.49

Currently, there is no Florida statute or regulation in place requiring tracks to report the number of injuries greyhounds suffer per year statewide. Therefore, it is unknown exactly how many greyhounds are injured per year at the 12 tracks in Florida. Several bills have been proposed that would require statewide injury reporting, but none have passed. In March 2016, the “legislature included a provision in the state budget that requires the DBPR Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, to implement injury reporting through the creation of a new administrative rule.”50 However, that rule has not yet been implemented.51

In 2017, Seminole County passed a county ordinance requiring greyhound racing kennels to maintain records of injuries and disposition of racing dogs.52 In a 10-month period, from May 2017 through March 2018, a total of 56 injuries were reported.53 Most of the reported injuries were broken bones in the dogs’ legs, but some were worse. For instance, one dog fractured his cervical vertebrae when he collided with another dog during a race.54 The injured dog had to be euthanized.55 On another occasion, a dog was bumped into a rail resulting in a large, deep laceration on its left hip and a severed muscle.56 Due to the severity of the injury, that dog also had to be euthanized.57 All of the reported injuries occurred at the Sanford-Orlando Track.

Up until May 2013, Florida tracks were not required to report the death of a greyhound. Therefore, it is unknown how many dogs died before reporting became mandatory. As of May 2013, permit holders are required to notify the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering “within 18 hours of the death of any racing greyhound that occurred on the grounds of a greyhound track or kennel compound.”58 From June 2013 through January 2018, a total of 462 greyhound deaths were reported to DBPR’s Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering.59

The motivation for continuing greyhound racing in Florida is no secret. Under Florida law, only a pari-mutuel permit holder is permitted to operate a card room.60 A “pari-mutuel facility” is defined by statute as “a racetrack, fronton, or other facility used by a permit holder for the conduct of pari-mutuel wagering.”61 Pari-mutuel facilities are allowed to offer wagering on jai alai, horse racing, or greyhound racing. To operate a card room in Florida, you must also be a licensed pari-mutuel permit holder.62 Licensed card rooms can offer poker and/or dominoes.63 In addition to card games, slot machine gaming is authorized at pari-mutuel facilities in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.64

As a result of this legislation, greyhound racing and card rooms are essentially joined at the hip. With the exception of Indian gaming facilities, only a pari-mutuel facility can operate a card room in Florida. Therefore, if a facility wishes to continue to offer profitable card games, it must also continue to race greyhounds and maintain a full schedule of live racing, which consists of no fewer than 90 percent of the live performances the facility conducted during the fiscal year that its card room license was issued or the fiscal year before it was issued.65 As an example, the Naples-Fort Myers track had to run 393 performances in fiscal year 2012 to keep its card room license,66 and has a total of 394 performances scheduled for 2017-2018.67 Facilities that offer slot machine gaming also must conduct a full schedule of live races per year to maintain a license.68

Many proponents of “decoupling” believe that pari-mutuel facilities would either reduce or discontinue greyhound races if legislation were passed removing the requirement that permitholders conduct races in order to operate card rooms and/or slot machines. In recent years, greyhound racing has become less popular and less profitable. According to an independent study commissioned by the Florida Legislature, greyhound tracks in Florida sustained a combined operating loss of $35 million in 2012.69 Only three of the 13 tracks operating at the time made a profit from wagering on greyhounds.70 The tracks’ card rooms offset the loss with an operating profit of $39 million.71

In the last 10 years, pari-mutuel wagering has experienced a 60.8 percent decline in total state revenue from more than $30 million in 2006-2007 to less than $12 million in 2015-2016.72 Additionally, in 2005-2006, Florida greyhound tracks had a total handle (amount wagered) of $477,910,496 compared to a total handle of $239,916,510 in 2015-2016, an approximate 50 percent decline.73 However, the total state revenue from card rooms has increased over the last 10 years from about $6 million in 2006-2007 to more than $15 million in 2015-2016.74 State revenue from slot machines also has increased over the last 10 years from just under $50 million in 2006-2007 to nearly $188 million in 2015-2016.75

There have been many efforts in recent years to decouple greyhound racing in Florida; however, this issue has proved nearly impossible for the Florida Legislature to address. The legislature has tried, unsuccessfully, to fix the problem over 10 consecutive legislative sessions. Even though most would agree with a policy that would decouple racing from other types of gambling, the solution is eclipsed by larger gambling issues, concerns about expanded gaming, and objections from greyhound breeders who argue their livelihoods are at risk. The proposed constitutional amendment would not only “decouple” greyhound racing from other forms of gambling, but also bring an end to live greyhound racing in Florida. The CRC process offers the perfect avenue for the people of Florida to voice their opinions on this important issue. The CRC members are commended for their careful deliberations and ultimate decision to place this important measure on the ballot.

The Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment, which was amended twice since being filed by Sen. Lee, would add new sections to Fla. Const. art. X and art. XII “to prohibit the racing of and wagering on greyhounds and other dogs after a specified date.”76 The proposed language with respect to art. X provides:

“The humane treatment of animals is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. After December 31, 2020, a person authorized to conduct gaming or pari-mutuel operations may not race greyhounds or any member of the Canis familiaris subspecies in connection with any wager for money or any other thing of value in this state, and persons in this state may not wager money or any other thing of value on the outcome of a live dog race occurring in this state. The failure to conduct greyhound racing or wagering on greyhound racing after December 31, 2018, does not constitute grounds to revoke or deny renewal of other related gaming licenses held by a person who is a licensed greyhound permit holder on January 1, 2018, and does not affect the eligibility of such permit holder, or such permit holder’s facility, to conduct other pari-mutuel activities authorized by general law. general law, the legislature shall specify civil or criminal penalties for violations of this section and for activities that aid or abet violations of this section.”77

The proposed new section to art. XII states that the prohibition on “racing of or wagering on greyhounds and other dogs” set forth in art. X “shall take effect upon the approval of the electors.”78

What the Amendment Means
If approved by Florida voters, the amendment would prohibit pari-mutuel permit holders from racing greyhounds and anyone from wagering on live dog races occurring in the state of Florida, effective December 31, 2020. Most importantly for pari-mutuel permit holders, the amendment would not affect their other gaming licenses. If the amendment passes, greyhound and other live dog racing would be banned, but the facilities that currently race greyhounds would be allowed to continue the profitable side of their business, i.e., the card rooms and/or slots. Additionally, the amendment includes a provision that allows permit holders to cease greyhound racing as early as January 1, 2019, without it affecting their eligibility to conduct other pari-mutuel activities authorized by law. Thus, permit holders would have the option to stop racing greyhounds as soon as two months after the amendment passes.

Opposition to the Amendment
Recently, a representative from the principal opponent, Florida Greyhound Association (FGA), wrote an article stating that greyhound racing is good for Florida and good for the greyhounds.79 Additionally, he argues that the industry generates revenue and provides thousands of jobs while the racing greyhounds are well trained and well treated.80

The FGA filed a lawsuit challenging the proposed amendment.81 The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the placement of the proposed amendment on the November 2018 ballot, alleging that “the ballot title and summary language are inaccurate, misleading, and fail to inform voters of the true effect of the proposed amendment.”82 On August 1, the circuit court ruled to strike the amendment from the November ballot, stating that the language “is misleading and inaccurate and incomplete.”83 Proponents of the amendment have appealed the ruling.84 The Animal Law Section, the Humane Society of the United States, Grey2K USA, and others continue to support the amendment and are hopeful it will be presented to the voters in November.

Some have questioned whether it is appropriate to address this issue in the Florida Constitution. However, there is no better place for this evolution in the law to be enshrined. The law historically has viewed animals as personal property. As we come to understand more about animals, the law is shifting toward a more humane view that recognizes the distinction between living, sentient beings and other forms of personal property. Future generations will be able to point to this change in the Florida Constitution as an important shift in the way animals are treated and an example of our social and moral progress. Furthermore, it would not be the first time that Florida adopted a constitutional amendment that addresses the treatment of animals. In 2002, Florida’s constitution was amended to add a provision limiting cruel and inhumane confinement of pigs during pregnancy.85

Let the People Decide
Ultimately, it should be the people of Florida who decide whether greyhound racing should end. Hopefully, Florida voters will get the opportunity to decide whether we should continue to prop up a dying industry that contributes to the suffering of innocent animals, or if we as a state will stand up for those animals and finally end the suffering.

1 Fla. Const. art. XI, §2.

2 See also Gregg R. Morton & Ralph A. DeMeo, Support the Orderly End to Florida Greyhound Racing, Tallahassee Democrat, Mar. 18, 2018.

3 See GREY2K USA Worldwide, Greyhound Racing in the United States,

4 Id.

5 Spectrum Gaming Group, Gambling Impact Study 60 (2013), available at

6 The proposal was co-introduced by Sen. Don Gaetz and Brecht Heuchan. See 2017-2018 CRC, Proposal 67 (Fla. 2017), available at

7 Rules of the Const. Revision Commission, Rule 5.4(4) (2017-2018), available at

8 2017-2018 CRC, History of Proposal 6012, available at

9 Florida Greyhound Association, Inc. and James Blanchard v. Florida Department of State and Ken Detzner, No. 2018-CA-001114 (Fla. 2d Cir. Aug. 1, 2018).

10 Fla. Const. art. XI, §5(e).

11 2017-2018 CRC, Proposal 6012 (Fla. 2018), available at

12 The Greyhound Racing Association of America, Inc., The History of Greyhound Racing,

13 Id.

14 Amelia Cook, GREY2K USA Worldwide, High Stakes: Greyhound Racing in the United States 3 (2015), available at The bill actually passed over Gov. Doyle E. Carlton’s veto. Id.

15 R.B. Burdine, et al., First Annual Report of the State Racing Commission of Florida: Period Ending June 30, 1932 (July 1, 1932), available at–1st–SRC.pdf.

16 See note 3.

17 Kate MacFall, Greyhound Racing, Paw Rev. 10 (Winter 2017).

18 Email from Kate MacFall, Florida State Director of the Humane Society of the United States, to author (Nov. 18, 2016) (on file with author Ryan Parker).

19 F.A.C.R. 61D-2.023(2)(e)(1).

20 Cook, High Stakes: Greyhound Racing in the United States at 22. Turn-out time is the time a greyhound spends outside of its cage. Though there is no regulation in Florida requiring turn-out time, F.A.C.R. 61D-2.023(2)(d), 3(e), and (h), require turn-out pens to meet certain criteria relating to cleanliness, safety, and more.

21 Cook, High Stakes: Greyhound Racing in the United States at 22.

22 DBPR Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Investigative Report for Case No. 2006029115 (July 20, 2006). The report pertained to allegations that racing greyhounds were being double-crated at a kennel.

23 DBPR Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Consent Order for Case No. 2011006969 (Mar. 20, 2014).

24 DBPR Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Investigative Report for Case No. 2012034720 (Jan. 30, 2013).

25 DBPR Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Investigative Report for Case No. 2010035789 (Oct. 4, 2010).

26 Id.

27 Id.

28 DBPR Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Investigative Report for Case No. 2010054357 (May 13, 2011).

29 Id.

30 Id.

31 Id.

32 Id.

33 Cook, High Stakes: Greyhound Racing in the United States at 33.

34 Id. (emphasis added).

35 Id. (emphasis added).

36 Id.

37 Id. at 33-34.

38 DBPR Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Investigative Report for Case No. 2017002547 (Feb. 22, 2017).

39 Cook, High Stakes: Greyhound Racing in the United States at 32.

40 Id.

41 Jordan Ferrell, State Legislators Revive Bipartisan Effort to Ban Steroids in Dog Racing, WLTV (Oct. 27, 2017), available at

42 S.B. 512, 2017 Leg. Sess. (Fla. 2017); H.B. 743, 2017 Leg. Sess. (Fla. 2017).

43 See The Florida Senate, CS/HB 743: Steroid Use in Racing Greyhounds, available at; CS/SB 512: Steroid Use in Racing Greyhounds, available at

44 See note 40.

45 Id. See also H.B. 463, 2018 Leg. Sess. (Fla. 2018); S.B. 674, 2018 Leg. Sess. (Fla. 2018). Under the current version of Fla. Stat. §550.2415(1)(a), it is a violation of the section “for a person to impermissibly medicate an animal or for an animal to have a prohibited substance present resulting in a positive test for such medications or substances based on samples taken from the animal before or immediately after the racing of that animal.” However, the statute does not specifically mention anabolic steroids.

46 See H.B. 463: Steroid Use in Racing Greyhounds, available at; S.B. 674: Steroid Use in Racing Greyhounds, available at

47 DBPR Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Consent Order for Case No. 2012018061 (Aug. 8, 2014).

48 DBPR Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Final Order for Case Nos. 2017005955, 2017007251, 2017007266, 2017007333, 2017007349, 2017007373 (Apr. 24, 2017).

49 DBPR Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Order of Emergency Suspension of License for Case No’s. 2016053887, 2017025755, 2017027351, 2017027362, 2017027380, 2017036121 (July 28, 2017).

50 Katie Lagrone & Matthew Apthorp, Greyhound Injuries Still Unknown in Florida, WPTV, Oct. 14, 2016, available at See also note 16.

51 Id.

52 Seminole County Code of Ordinances Ch. 20, 16.

53 Seminole County Animal Services, Sanford-Orlando Greyhound Track Incident Reports (May 2017-Mar. 2018).

54 Seminole County Animal Services, Sanford-Orlando Greyhound Track Incident Report (July 13, 2017).

55 Id.

56 Seminole County Animal Services, Sanford-Orlando Greyhound Track Incident Report (May 17, 2017).

57 Id.

58 F.A.C.R. 61D-2.023(3)(k).

59 DBPR Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Spreadsheet of Greyhound Death Reports (Tallahassee) (on file with author).

60 Fla. Stat. §§849.086(2)(f) and (7).

61 Fla. Stat. §550.002(23).

62 Fla. Stat. §849.086(2)(f). With the exception of Indian gaming facilities.

63 DBPR Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Cardroom FAQs,

64 Fla. Stat. §551.101.

65 Fla. Stat. §849.086(5)(b). See also Fla. Stat. §550.002(11), which defines “[f]ull schedule of live racing or games” as “a combination of at least 100 live evening or matinee performances during the preceding year. . .”; F.A.C.R. 61D-2.027(1), which states “[e]ach performance shall consist of a minimum of eight races.”

66 Spectrum Gaming Group, Gambling Impact Study at 84.

67 DBPR Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Operating License #142: Greyhound Racing for the Bonita-Fort Myers Corporation 2017-2018 (Mar. 10, 2017), available at–License–Bonita-FortMyersCorp–SFE–DBA–Naples-FortMyersGreyhoundRacing7Poker–2017-2018–2017-03-10.pdf?x40199.

68 See Fla. Stat. §551.104(4)(c).

69 See note 65.

70 Id.

71 Id.

72 DBPR Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 85th Annual Report Fiscal Year 2015-2016 7 (2017), available at–85th–20170125.pdf.

73 See DBPR Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 75th Annual Report Fiscal Year 2005-2006 8 (2017) available at–75th.pdf; DBPR Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 85th Annual Report Fiscal Year 2015-2016 at 11.

74 Id. at 18.

75 Id. at 20.

76 See note 10.

77 Id.

78 Id.

79 Jack Cory, The Truth and Facts About Live Greyhound Racing in Florida, Florida Politics (Nov. 28, 2017),

80 Id.

81 Florida Greyhound Association, Inc. and James Blanchard v. Florida Dept. of State and Ken Detzner, No. 2018-CA-001114 (Fla. 2d Cir. Aug. 1, 2018).

82 Id.

83 Id.

84 Mary Ellen Klas, State Appeals Judge’s Ruling on Greyhound Ban, Leaving Ballot Amendment in Limbo, Tampa Bay Times, Aug. 2, 2018, available at

85 Fla. Const. art. X, §21. Section 21 even includes language similar to the proposed greyhound amendment. Compare Fla. Const. art. X, §21 (“Inhumane treatment of animals is a concern of Florida citizens.”), with Proposal 6012 (Fla. 2018) (“The humane treatment of animals is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida.”).

RYAN S. PARKER of St. Petersburg is a civil litigation attorney and member of The Florida Bar Animal Law Section and its Companion Animal Law Committee.



Photo of Ralph DeMeoRALPH A. DEMEO is an attorney with Baker Donelson in Tallahassee. He is past chair of the Animal Law Section of The Florida Bar.

Animal Law