Indiana set to lift ban on puppy mills; local officials say bill is not ready to be law

LAFAYETTE, Ind. — A day before Tippecanoe County’s ordinance barring puppy mills in the county went into effect, the Indiana Statehouse passed a bill that overrides local control, stopping local governments from banning the retail sale of dogs at pet stores.

The Senate approved House Bill 1412 with a 31-18 vote, and the House passed it earlier this session with a 59-36 vote.

The bill now awaits Gov. Eric Holcomb's signature or veto.

If Holcomb signs this bill, it becomes law on July 1 and will void municipalities' and counties' ordinances on the sale of dogs or cats.

The bill requires commercial dog breeders, commercial dog brokers and retail pet stores to register their businesses with the state, allows the Animal Board of Health to randomly inspect pet retail businesses without prior announcement. It also establishes civil penalties on businesses that fail to register, but the bill consolidates all of the power to regulate these businesses at the state level.

Puppy mills banned in Tippecanoe for the next four months

Last November, Tippecanoe County passed an ordinance that banned the retail sale of dogs and cats, also known as “puppy mills,” from operating in the county.

This county ordinance was created after local legislators were alarmed by conditions at a puppy mill after visiting a Tippecanoe County facility.

Nathan Bazler, the owner of Little Puppies Online, who owned a storefront in West Point, opposed the county's ordinance; the commissioners ultimately passed the local law before the state adopted House Bill 1412.

However, local leaders were surprised to learn that House Bill 1412 did not grandfather in earlier animal-control legislation passed by local municipalities.

“It’s unfortunate, I think, that local control was usurped in this manner,” Tippecanoe County Commissioner Tom Murtaugh said. “We clearly thought that we have an issue with (puppy mills), and we wanted to have local control on that issue, so it’s very disappointing to hear this.

“I had a lot of conversations with our representatives about this. It was unfortunate. I don’t know why they wouldn’t consider that.”

Murtaugh believes the bill lacks any active inspection program and guidelines needed to be considered a “good” bill that would address the concerns of local leaders.

The bill states that the Animal Board of Health may conduct a random, unannounced inspection on commercial dog breeders, commercial dog brokers and retail pet stores, but it can only do this once a calendar year unless the facility fails its inspections and requires additional inspections.

However, the bill does not define how long the pet facility has to correct the deficiencies that led to a failed inspection. It also doesn't prescribe how much time must lapse between a failed inspection and a reinspection of facilities.

“The unfortunate thing with the bill is that it states that there will be inspections of any retail stores, but there’s no funding that goes with it. It states that the animal board of health will do those inspections, but they don’t have the manpower to do those,” Murtaugh said.

“At the end of (the bill), it states that if the animal board of health can’t do it, then the local animal control officers will do it, but we don’t have those resources either, and it didn’t come with any additional funding for inspections.”

'The bill was not ready'

Sharon Dull, the president of the Humane Society of Greater Lafayette, is disappointed in the statehouse's willingness to move forward on House Bill 1412. She believed the “bill was not ready.”

Dull echoed the concerns about the bill's lack of funding to support the Animal Board of Health and local animal control’s new role of inspecting these businesses throughout the state.

“Lafayette had over 4,000 animal-related calls that they were fielding just last year," Dull said. "There were good things in the bill, it just wasn’t ready to go,” Dull said. “They needed funding and structure to back it, but negating local ordinances was just a slap in the face for home rule.

“It’s just sending a strong signal to local communities that what they want, that it really doesn’t matter, and that they don’t have a voice.”

The idea of retail pet stores, which solely sell dogs, is an “archaic” practice and that a large portion of pet stores no longer sell animals at their stores, finding the practice “unethical,” Dull said. She blamed Petland, a national pet store chain, for pressuring lawmakers to adopt the bill.

“Petland has a huge lobbying force behind them, and they have tried to pass these laws across the nation where they aren’t in place,” Dull said when criticizing the lobbying efforts behind House Bill 1412.

Out of the Lafayette area's four state lawmakers, three voted against the bill — Sen. Ron Alting, Rep. Sheila Klinker and Chris Campbell. Sen. Spencer Deery was the only Tippecanoe County representative who voted in favor of House Bill 1412.

The Journal & Courier emailed Deery for comment about his support for the bill.

"I considered this bill as not only a Senator, but as a dog lover, and I committed that I would vote in whatever way would best protect dogs in Indiana," Deery said when he phoned to comment.

"I supported House Bill 1412 because it uses criteria established by Purdue to put into place the strictest standards in the country for the retail sale of dogs while maintaining the ability of local governments to regulate dog sales within their zoning powers."

Dull shared how many in the community, herself included, attempted to reach out to their local state representatives in hopes of convincing them to vote against the bill.

“I know the local officials wrote letters. I know my contacts contacted Sen. Alting,” Dull said. “But I know for a fact that Deery’s office received well over 100 phone calls opposing the bill. It’s really frustrating.”

Murtaugh said, “It’s really just unfortunate, and too premature.

"As I mentioned to our legislators, the bill itself isn’t bad. I mean inspections are a good thing. We would be on board with retail sales if there was an active inspection program and guidelines put in place and enforced.

“But this bill does not do that.”

Noe Padilla is a reporter for the Journal & Courier. Email him at Npadilla@jconline.com and follow him on X at 1NoePadilla.

This article originally appeared on Lafayette Journal & Courier: Local officials comment on statehouse bill lifting puppy mill bans