IBJNews

After raid, pet store owner agrees to quit selling animals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The owner of an Indianapolis pet store that was raided last month by Animal Care and Control has reached a legal agreement that prevents him from selling live animals.

Bill Houston, who has operated The Fish Bowl at 2101 East Michigan St. for 45 years, agreed not to try to get his pet-dealing license restored or apply for another one, Fox59 has reported.

The license was suspended last month after animal control officers found 581 safety violations at the store. Officers discovered hundreds of dead fish, lizards and other reptiles inside cramped, feces-filled cages or floating in tanks. Two live puppies and dozens of birds were confiscated.

Houston faced thousands of dollars in penalties, but a Marion County judge lowered the fine to $216.

In exchange, Houston agreed never to own or manage a store in Marion County that sells live animals. He also forfeited the rights to the confiscated animals.

The Fish Bowl remains open as a pet-supply store.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Slap on the Hand!
    Geez! That many dead sentient beings whose lives are only worth $216 collectively and that isn't even taking into consideration the animals that suffered or were rescued on the brink of death. Great justice system we have here!
  • Too Lenient
    So the guy has to pay a whopping $216 and is free to open another pet store in Hancock or Hamilton County? That fee doesn't even cover one of the rescuers time spent cleaning up his filthy store. Lesson definitely learned here - NOT. Or maybe just ambiguity in the reporting?
  • Good job, now do more good.
    I don't think DCE does a very good job, in general, enforcing code issues. They typically seek to address the simplest, easiest to enforce and prosecute issues, while often ignoring anything more complicated, regardless of impact on quality of life for the rest of the community. But kudos to DCE for actually taking this action, although one might guess that it could've been done years ago. Now, keep up the good work and start addressing more complicated issues like illegal conversions of houses and doubles to multiple tiny apartments that violate zoning and building codes.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT