Indiana lawmakers are considering legislation that would stop Indiana municipalities from banning the retail sale of cats or dogs.
Senate Bill 134 would stop local governments from enacting or enforcing a ban on retail pet sales, depending on which breeders they acquire the animals from.
Opponents of the measure, including the Humane Society of Elkhart County, fear it will allow puppy mills to operate in the state without regulation.
The bills also face backlash for being backed by Petland, the nation’s largest chain of pet stores, who lobbied on the bills’ behalf.
The bill is moving on to the Senate for a second reading, where it could be amended.
The following statement about the Senate bill was released by the Humane Society of Elkhart County:
Dear Friends:
I am writing you today to provide you with some information of a bill in the Indiana State Senate House and Agricultural Committee that we have been advocating against has passed. For more information on the bill please see the link below.
I have been working with surrounding shelters, the Humane Society of the United States and the Indiana State Association of Animal Welfare Professionals in an attempt to defeat this bill. It has been proposed by our own Senator, Blake Doriot, and is being provided as a way to circumvent local regulations of pet stores. In fact, it appears the bill has been written by Petland, a large retail pet store out of Ohio with franchises throughout the midwest. You will see in the bill that it appears to be innocuous as it defines “companion animals” and “casual breeders”, but this bill is designed to keep our county from passing any restrictions on the sale of puppy mill dogs or any other animals through any future pet stores.
I’m sure that you are all aware of the damages done to the HSEC from the number of dogs in our community from casual breeders, which are defined as having up to 20 unaltered females for breeding purposes. As of this writing we have more than 40 adoptable dogs in our shelter, and we are filled with both dogs and cats waiting for their stray hold to end or to be united with their owners. Today we have 101 cats, 81 dogs and a snake in our facility. This bill encourages a tremendous amount of breeding without any risk of regulation or enforcement.
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2023/bills/senate/134#document-ac1d8b8c <https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2023/bills/senate/134>
Please be sure to reach out to Senator Doriot to voice your opposition to this bill as it will be headed out of committee and to the general assembly. His email is Senator.Doriot@iga.in.gov <mailto:Senator.Doriot@iga.in.gov> and his phone number is 800-382-9467 or 317-232-9400.
I will be continuing to work with our partners to defeat this bill and will be reaching out to media to respectfully voice my displeasure with this bill which clearly puts the corporate profits of pet stores such as “Petland” above our efforts to control the pet population and restricts local abilities of our local elected officials to regulate or prohibit the sale of cats and dogs from puppy mills.
Robert LaRoy, MNM
Executive Director
Humane Society of Elkhart County
54687 County Road 19
Bristol, IN 46507
3 comments
The only beneficiary of this insane bill is Petland and every puppymill that cares less about dogs welfare! Shame on lawmakers for the obvious failure to protect animals in the name of corporate greed!!
If you’ve ever been to a puppy mill before you will be immediately horrified and disgusted as to how the animals are treated. These are not Registered breeders. They throw a pile of dogs behind a fence and let them go at it. We inadvertantly got a dog from one not knowing the source and she came sick and had a bad case of worms. We took the animal much to rescue her as to get away from the situation as fast as we could. From there we notified the authorities. The idea that lawmakers want to wash thier hands of any sort of regulation and protection these animals is disgusting and smacks of corruption.
I feel there is more to this story than we are being told. This looks like a way to stop the local governments from preventing upstart competitors from playing in the established sandbox. I will have to go read the exact wording on this bill to be sure. Part of this theory is supported by the language in the story: “opponents fear”. They can’t point out specific harms in the bill or where it would make a difference, but they oppose it because it opposes their agenda. At least, that’s usually what those words mean in a story…