A controversial bill to establish regular inspections for pet stores, commercial dog breeders or brokers and certain animal rescue operations got the green light from senators on the Committee on Agriculture on Monday, but lawmakers continued to punt on the question of funding.
The bill passed the committee unanimously and advanced to the full Senate for further consideration.
Local elected officials objected to a major provision of the bill that would usurp local control. The bill would void ordinances in 21 communities, including Indianapolis, across the state that ban stores from selling pets from breeders.
Rep. Beau Baird, R-Greencastle, said he authored the bill to raise the standard of care and combat unethical breeding practices.
“I know you’ll probably hear … that House Bill 1412 could inadvertently lead to the creation of puppy mills. However, it is essential to clarify that this bill is, in fact, anti-puppy mill,” Baird said. “… what this bill is attempting to do is reset state standards.”
Cities including Indianapolis, Carmel and Columbus that passed bans on retail sales of pets only shifted that demand to “unregulated areas in Indiana,” Baird said.
One lawmaker said he believed those cities wouldn’t have sought those bans under the stricter standards of this bill. Senators also added in a maximum $10,000 civil penalty for operators who knowingly or intentionally fail to register with the Indiana State Board of Animal Health.
Testimony in support
The bill attracted a bevy of pet store owners, many of them associated with Petland, the nation’s largest chain of stores selling puppies and other pets, alongside a handful of Amish breeders.
Lori Wilson, the vice president of sales with Uncle Bill’s Pet Centers, said the bill “will make Indiana the best place to get a convenient animal of your choice with healthy genetics.”
“If anyone is against House Bill 1412, one should ask why. Why would anyone be against regulations and standards to raise quality puppies people are looking for?” Wilson said. “Taking away regulated business and pushing consumers to a black market to get a puppy makes no sense.”
John Troyer, an Amish puppy breeder in Topeka, Indiana, said “generations before us deserved that (puppy mill) label because they didn’t do it right,” but he intends to change that reputation.
He said he’s received death threats for reporting his fellow Amish community members for animal care violations.
“I’m dedicated to changing animal welfare,” Troyer said. “I encourage you to vote ‘yes’ because we are the ones that deal with those bad actors behind the scenes and this will help us get rid of them.”
Testimony opposed
But several members of the public blasted committee members for not addressing funding, saying the state board isn’t sufficiently staffed to carry out additional duties. Legislators also have neglected to invest in a statewide spay/neuter program.
Cathi Eagen, the founder and director of the CanINE Express Transport Project, said she’s transported more than 13,000 dogs out of south central Indiana shelters to other states because of pet overpopulation. Contrary to committee member comments, she said breeds ran the gamut and many were considered purebred.
“We all know that the breeder and pet store inspections will not be happening on a regular basis. Don’t expect us to believe that,” Eagen said.
Amy-Jo Sites, the director of Fort Wayne Animal Care and Control, said parts of the bill were unenforceable, including a requirement that consumers commit to spaying and neutering recently purchased animals — which she said the state already mandated but couldn’t achieve due to a shortage of veterinarians.
Additionally, breeders frequently placed purebred animals with her shelter as soon as the mothers were too old to breed—sometimes for dogs only a few years old, she said.
Tom Dell, an at-large member of the Columbus City Council, said his city had decided to prohibit the sales of dogs, cats and bunnies due to concerns about bad breeders even though only one sold those pets.
“You’re taking away local control; you’re telling us what we can do and what we can’t do. Our constituents asked us to do something, we responded to them. We didn’t make it up on our own,” Dell said. “A lot of the things in this bill make sense as far as some of the industries that are out there but when you take control away from us, you don’t allow the locals to even have a say.”
Sarah Simpson, the general counsel for the Board of Animal Health, said the agency already has a voluntary registry for animal shelters with a high adoption rate. In 2023, she said that the board used a $25,000 dedicated fund to conduct 15 inspections for breeders or brokers, all of which were at new or relocated facilities.
“If you look at the inspection section (of the bill), it provides discretion … for our board to determine the frequency. There’s no required amount,” Simpson said, who didn’t testify either way on the bill.
She said there are four animal health specialists who would be conducting the inspections across the state “if we have sufficient funding to do that” but said the agency didn’t currently know how many pet stores were located in Indiana.
“Without a fee at this point, that’s a little bit of an unknown,” Simpson said. “If there (are) fees to support in that ($25,000) dedicated fund moving forward, that would be our staff doing that.”
Lawmakers didn’t rule out revisiting funding next year but didn’t make any commitments.
The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, not-for-profit news organization that covers state government, policy and elections.
