Tensions flared at 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 went against the wishes of animal welfare advocates and numerous local officials.
A similar bill failed to pass last year following an outcry. Lawmakers said at the time they had too little time to address “too many issues” with the contentious legislation.
Many who spoke out about the previous proposal returned to testify on Monday.
Up for debate is House Bill 1412, authored by Rep. Beau Baird, R-Greencastle. The bill passed out of the House agriculture committee in a 9-4 party line vote, sending it to the full chamber.
Baird maintained it’s an “anti-puppy mill bill” that sets state regulations for dog sales and subjects pet stores to random inspections. He said, too, it ensures that pet stores can operate throughout the state.
“By implementing statewide regulations, we not only safeguard the wellbeing of dogs, but we also prevent 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 the unethical breeding practices.”
But among the bill’s most debated provisions is one that voids local restrictions on the sale of dogs at retail pet stores.
Ordinances in communities like Indianapolis, Crown Point, Carmel and Columbus prevent pet shops in those municipalities from selling dogs, and sometimes other animals, sourced from breeders and brokers. Instead, pet stores can only collaborate with animal care or rescue organizations to show adoptable pets.
Critics additionally said Baird’s measure lacks necessary funding and proper enforcement mechanisms, as well as language to guarantee hobby breeders must comply with utmost care standards.
“This bill moves our state in the wrong direction, harms consumers, harms dogs and would undermine 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 the breeders who supply puppies to pet stores. Now this industry is asking for more.”
Retail stores in support
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).
On Monday, the committee also unanimously advanced House Bill 1337, authored by Rep. Karen Engleman (R-Gerogetown). The measure would allow an HOA to regulate — but not prohibit — privately-owned honeybee hives.
Starting July 1, 2025, commercial dog breeders, brokers and retail pet stores would be subject to random inspections by the BOAH.
“This proactive approach is crucial in identifying and addressing potential issues and violations, reinforcing our commitment to the humane treatment of animals,” Baird said.
The bill additionally establishes mandatory disclosures for retail sales of dogs — including those relating to vaccinations, pedigree information, microchipping and details about the commercial dog breeder or broker, if that’s where the dog came from. Another provision seeks to carve out a warranty guarantee for customers if a pet is unfit due to illness or disease.
Evoking last year’s bill, Baird’s measure would not allow cities and towns to ban the retail sale of pets, effective July 1, 2024. Unlike the 2023 proposal, House Bill 1412 does not grandfather bans adopted earlier, though Baird said he would be open to 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 “took seriously” critiques from last year’s bill and supports the new legislation “that substantially addresses” earlier concerns.
Even so, he doubled down that “there’s no compelling reason why a local government should put a pet store out of business when we have established the best standards of care for the animal from breeder to 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 offers “relief” from local bans and promotes a regulated market for pet stores to sell animals from reputable breeders.
She maintained the company only buys pets from breeders that are licensed, inspected and regulated by the USDA, and that the company regularly visits breeders to ensure animals are raised in good conditions.
“Unfortunately there’s been a lot of focus on Petland, and I’m here to say this bill is not about Petland. It’s about high standards 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 English guys, as well,” he said. “But there is a good way to breed dogs. America wants it. And If we don’t do it, right, they’re going to get it in the black market. So why not support good breeding practices?”
Baird further held that the bill does not eliminate local control and instead “represents a pivotal moment in Indiana, signaling our commitment to responsible dog breeding and ensuring the humane treatment of animals in a retail setting.”
“It sets a higher standard for the well-being of our four-legged friends, while allowing local authorities to take appropriate action against those who defy the law,” he said. “We are ushering in a new era of canine standards of care — providing a framework that ensures uniformity and consistency in the treatment of dogs across our state.”
If a retailer fails to abide by the law and “acts as a bad actor,” Baird continued, local units of government “are empowered and enabled to go after those individuals.”
Pushback mounts against second-attempt bill
But Jenna Bentley, representing Accelerate Indiana Municipalities (AIM), pointed to 21 Hoosier communities that have already passed local ordinances. She said some locals attempted to first pass ordinances “to essentially do what this bill does” and still allow pet stores to operate, as long as they sell cats or dogs sourced from breeders who meet certain standards.
“But unfortunately, that was very hard to enforce for them locally, which is why they had to do the total ban,” Bentley said. “Some of these issues can be vetted and addressed locally. They’re more familiar with the pet stores in their communities, which is why we would like these decisions to be made there.”
Adam Aasen, vice president of Carmel’s 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 has been “incredibly popular” among those who live there, but admitted it might not be the best for every community: “But that’s why we have local home rule.”
“This isn’t like Beanie Babies. When you have too many Beanie Babies, you throw them in a landfill. You incinerate them,” Aasen continued. “When you have too much supply of an animal, it overflows the shelters — which costs the taxpayer money — or you have to kill the animal. We have too much supply as it is. We decided we did not want to add to the supply in our city.”
Others said the bill won’t be effective without a funding mechanism and should instead be sent to a summer study committee.
House agriculture committee chairman Rep. Mike Aylesworth, R-Hebron, said he expected funding to come in the 2025 budget session.
Amy-Jo Sites, director of Fort Wayne’s Animal Care and Control, also expressed concern about a bill provision establishing spay and neuter requirements for dogs purchased from a pet store “within a reasonable time, as specified by a licensed veterinarian” — but that timeline is not explicitly defined.
“Who’s going to do that? Who’s going to make sure that it’s done, and what is a reasonable time?” Sites asked. She noted that while Indiana already has a mandatory sterilization law, it’s “not enforceable” because many shelters lack access to a low-cost veterinarian.
“What you’re doing is inadvertently providing municipalities like myself more work and or those that don’t have it, they’re not going to have any teeth to do anything,” Sites continued. “I am all for increasing standards about hobby breeders … but until broker or breeder laws within those communities are not only in place, but also enforced, it is not going to change.