A Monday hearing on Indiana’s proposed canine care bill before the Indiana Senate Agriculture Committee left some opponents of the measure accusing legislators of being dismissive of their concerns.
“Give us some respect, damn,” Robert Perry of Nashville said after he accused some legislators, notably Chairwoman State Sen. Jean Leising, R-Oldenburg, for being patronizing and antagonistic when those opposed to the measure spoke. He said legislators didn’t bother to pay attention, shuffling papers and scrolling on their phones.
“I think you have telegraphed what we can expect in this way on this bill going forward,” he said.
Before Perry’s testimony, another speaker said she could notice almost immediately the different way legislators treated those who spoke out in favor of the bill versus those against it, saying supporters were delivered softball questions while legislators were noticeably confrontational to opponents.
Leising countered that legislators had to ask the tough questions and she had given more time to the opponents to speak than the supporters.
HB 1312 resurfaced this session after a similar measure was killed in the 2023 legislative session. Supporters say the “canine care” bill improves animal welfare and creates a mechanism to hold bad actors in the dog breeding and selling industry responsible. The measure would void the 21 local existing bans on pet store sales of dogs and prevent future such local ordinances, which supporters say allows free enterprise to flourish by allowing pet store businesses to sell what it is they choose to sell in their stores.
In contrast, opponents argue that the bill does not do enough to eliminate puppy mill sales to pet stores and still provides an avenue for breeders who do not adhere to the canine standards of care to sell their puppies so long as they are registered with the USDA and have no active complaints in the past two years. By banning local ordinances against puppy sales, opponents say the legislature is impeding local control.
The bill creates a registry system for breeders, pet stores and rescues, and it uses the canine standards of care established by Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine. It establishes fines for violations, as well as rules for returns and requires veterinary care before a sale. The measure established the state Board of Animal Health as the agency responsible for oversight of the law. Local law enforcement would be responsible for enforcing violations.
The bill does not currently have a funding source for any of its enforcement measures. An amendment also removed hobby breeders — those with 20 animals or less — from the requirements.
State Sen. Beau Baird, R-Greencastle, said the bill seeks to establish comprehensive regulations and a framework that promotes responsible breeding and humane treatment of dogs. The legislation mandates registration, requires documentation for essential information, and introduces inspections. He said the bill is attempting to reset state standards and create protections in places where demand resides instead of forcing potential dog buyers onto the black market.
Adam Austin, a Republican on the Carmel City Council, urged legislators to reconsider the bill. He said Carmel is the largest Republican-controlled city in the state and they passed their ban on selling cats and dogs in 2020. A single pet store did not close and no one lost their jobs, he said.
Austin said he ran on the issue in the last election and he was the single largest vote-getter in the race. He said he could appreciate the standards legislators were trying to create but urged them not to void existing ordinances while they waited to see if the new rules would work and not create a financial burden on communities.
“This is not a ‘woke’ issue. It’s a fiscal responsibility issue. It’s a local control issue,” he said.
