Tensions flared in the Statehouse on Monday as lawmakers revived — and advanced — a bill to block cities and towns from banning the retail sale of dogs. It was a win for puppy breeders and a national pet store chain but ran counter to the wishes of animal welfare advocates and many local officials.
A similar bill did not pass last year following the cry. Lawmakers said at the time they had too little time to address “too many issues” in the controversial law.
Many of those who spoke about the previous proposal returned to testify Monday.
For debate is House Bill 1412, wrote Rep. Beau Baird, R-Greencastle. The bill passed the House agriculture committee on a 9-4 vote along party lines, sending it to the full chamber.
Baird argued that it was an “anti-puppy mill bill” that would set state regulations for puppy sales and subject pet stores to random inspections. He also said, it ensures that pet stores can operate across the state.
“By enforcing statewide regulations, we are not only protecting the welfare of dogs, but we are also preventing the emergence of puppy mills in our rural areas where animal shelters are already struggling to manage their capacity,” he said. “House Bill 1412 is a proactive solution to address the root causes of unethical reproductive practices.”
But among the bill’s most controversial provisions is one that repeals local restrictions on the sale of dogs in retail pet stores.
Ordinances in communities such as Indianapolis, Crown Point, Carmel and Columbus prevent pet stores in those municipalities from selling dogs, and sometimes other animals, that come from breeders and broker. Instead, pet stores can only work with animal welfare organizations or rescues to display adoptable pets.
Critics also say Baird’s proposal lacks the necessary funding and proper enforcement mechanisms, as well as language to guarantee that recreation providers must adhere to the highest standards of care.
“This bill moves our state in the wrong direction, harms consumers, harms dogs and undermines local authority,” said Sana Azem, senior legislative director for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), Midwest division. “The puppy mill industry has fought to keep Hoosiers in the dark about the inhumane practices of breeders who supply puppies to pet stores. Now this industry is demanding more.”
Support retail stores
Among the many provisions in Baird’s bill are those that require retail pet stores, animal care facilities and animal rescue operations to register with the Indiana Board of Animal Health (BOAH).
Beginning July 1, 2025, commercial dog breeders, brokers and retail pet stores will be subject to random BOAH inspections.
“This proactive approach is essential in identifying and addressing potential issues and violations, which reinforces our commitment to the humane treatment of animals,” Baird said.
The bill also establishes mandatory disclosures for the retail sale of dogs — including those related to vaccinations, pedigree information, microchipping and details about the dog’s commercial breeder or broker, where the dog came from. Another provision seeks to create a warranty guarantee for customers if a pet is unfit due to illness or disease.
Building on last year’s bill, Baird’s proposal would not allow cities and towns to ban the retail sale of pets, beginning July 1, 2024. Pushing the effective date back to 2025.
Indiana lobbyist Mark Shublak spoke in support of the bill on behalf of Petland, the nation’s largest chain of stores that sell puppies and other pets. He said the Ohio-based company “takes seriously” criticism from last year’s bill and supports the new law “which is more responsive” to earlier concerns.
However, he reiterated that “there is no compelling reason why a local government should eliminate a pet store when we have established the best standards of animal care from the breeder to the pet store.”
Elizabeth Kunzelman, Petland’s vice president of legislative and public affairs, also testified that the bill is “not about us — but it’s necessary.”
Kunzelman told lawmakers in 2023 that such legislation would offer “relief” from local bans and promote a regulated market for pet stores to sell animals from known breeder.
He maintains that the company only buys livestock from breeders licensed, inspected and regulated by the USDA, and that the company regularly visits breeders to ensure the animals are raised in good conditions.
“Unfortunately there has been a lot of focus on Petland, and I’m here to say that this bill is not about Petland. It’s about a high standard of care,” Kunzelman said Monday, speaking about Baird’s proposal. “It holds pet stores accountable, and it provides clear protections for Indiana consumers.”
John Troyer, an Amish puppy breeder in Topeka, Indiana, agreed, saying the bill helps “level the playing field.”
“I am hated and despised by members of my own community, and by the English as well,” he said. “But there is a good way to breed a dog. America likes it. And if we don’t, well, they’ll get it on the black market. So why not support good breeding practices?”
Baird added that the bill does not eliminate local control and instead “represents an important moment in Indiana, signaling our commitment to responsible dog breeding and ensuring the humane treatment of animals at a retail setting.”
“This sets a higher standard for the welfare of our four-legged friends, while allowing local authorities to take appropriate action against those who break the law,” he said. “We are ushering in a new era of dog welfare standards – providing a framework that ensures uniformity and consistency in the treatment of dogs in our state.”
If a retailer fails to comply with the law and “acts as a bad actor,” Baird continued, local units of government are “empowered and empowered to go after those individuals.”
Pushback mounts against the second-attempt bill
But Jenna Bentley, who represents Accelerate Indiana Municipalities (AIM), pointed to 21 Hoosier communities that have already passed local ordinances. He said some locals have tried to pass ordinances first “to actually do what this bill does” and still allow pet stores to operate, as long as they sell cats or dogs from to breeders who meet certain criteria.
“But unfortunately, that’s very difficult for them to enforce locally, so they have to do the total ban,” Bentley said. “Some of these issues can be analyzed and addressed locally. They are more familiar with the pet stores in their communities, so we want to make these decisions there.”
Indiana bills backed by a national pet store chain are drawing pushback from animal advocates
Adam Aasen, vice president of the Carmel city council, said his community’s existing ban helps “avoid the headache of trying to regulate pet stores, which can be difficult.”
He emphasized that Carmel’s ordinance is “very popular” among those who live there, but admitted that it may not be the best for every community: “But that’s why we have local home rule.”
“It’s not like Beanie Babies. When you have too many Beanie Babies, you throw them in a landfill. Incinerate them,” Aasen continued. “When you have too much supply of an animal, it overflows into shelters – which costs taxpayer money – or you have to euthanize the animal. We’re oversupplied. We’ve decided we don’t want to add to the supply in our city.
Others said the bill would not be effective without a funding mechanism and should instead be sent to a summer study committee.
House agriculture committee chairman Rep. said. Mike Aylesworth, R-Hebron, said he expects the funding to arrive in the 2025 budget session.
Amy-Jo Sites, director of Fort Wayne Animal Care and Control, also expressed concern about the bill’s provision establishing spay and neuter requirements for dogs purchased from a pet store. pet “within a reasonable time, as determined by a licensed veterinarian” — but that timeline is not explicitly specified.
“Who would do that? Who’s going to make sure it’s done, and what’s a reasonable time?” Sites asked. He noted that while Indiana already has a mandatory sterilization law, it is “unenforceable” because many shelters don’t have access to a low-cost veterinarian.
“What you’re doing is inadvertently giving municipalities like mine more work and or those that don’t have it, they won’t have any teeth to do anything,” Sites continued. “I’m all for raising standards regarding hobby breeders … but until broker or breeder laws are not only enforced within those communities, but enforced, it’s not going to change.
GET MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
