IBJNews

Panel OKs bill to provide pet buyers with info

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A House committee unanimously endorsed a bill Wednesday that would require retail pet stores to give buyers information about a pet's background and medical history before selling a dog or cat.

Supporters said the legislation is critical to protect consumers looking for a family pet. The bill would require pet stores to put information about the dog or cat on its cage in the store — including the animal's medical history, the name of the breeder and any congenital disorders. Customers could get other information, including the address and size of the breeding operation, upon request or when they buy a dog or cat.

Sarah Hayes, president of the Indiana Alliance of Animal Control and Welfare Organizations, said pet stores often spin the truth about where they get their dogs. Instead of saying animals come from large-scale breeding operations, a pet store may tell a customer that the dog simply came from a "local" breeder, she said.

"Local can be a puppy mill also," she said. "If pet stores are telling the truth that their animals do not come from puppy mills, they should have nothing to hide and shouldn't have a problem with simply posting this information."

Supporters said they've heard from many people who buy dogs and cats at pet stores and are then stuck with huge vet bills — or faced with euthanizing the animal — when serious health problems are found.

But opponents — including Indiana pet stores — said the rules are unfair and would be a hardship on their businesses. Craig Curry, special projects manager for Uncle Bill's Pet Centers, said the company's five stores in Indiana already give pet information to customers when they buy a dog or cat. And the stores guarantee the health of the animals, he said.

But Curry said it wasn't a good idea to release information about breeders before a customer buys a dog or cat because some animal rights extremists could use that information to harass or hurt breeders.

"We are so terrified that we are going to get people hurt," Curry said.

Uncle Bill's locations are frequently protested by animal anti-cruelty groups because it allegedly sells dogs from puppy mills.

Other opponents said giving the name of the breeder could provide a shortcut for the customer, who could then go to the breeder to buy a dog rather than purchase from the pet store.

The original proposal included a $25 fee for every dog and cat sold at a pet store, but that provision was removed after stores called it a tax that would cut into their profits and hurt business.

The bill would also increase the penalty for attending a dog fight in Indiana from a misdemeanor to a felony.

The House Courts and Criminal Code Committee voted 11-0 for the bill, which now moves to the full House for consideration.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT