Something refreshing happened at the Indiana General Assembly last week. A couple of officials, a Democrat and a Republican, spoke up in defense of the idea that local communities, not the state, ought to be able to make decisions that affect their communities.
Especially refreshing was that one of these officials was a state lawmaker.
The issue that had Columbus City Councilman Tom Dell, D-at large, and Rep. Ryan Lauer, R-Columbus, singing out of the same hymnal was Senate Bill 134. That bill would take away the power of cities and towns to prohibit dog sales by pet shops that work with qualified breeders.
Columbus already has a such a local ordinance on the books, and not even this overreaching Indiana Legislature can change that. Columbus is one of several Indiana cities that have adopted an ordinance like this or are considering it. Apparently, this irks some big-box pet stores whose lobbyists howled to lawmakers about it, and SB134 was the result.
As The Republic’s Jana Wiersema reported, Columbus’ ordinance “allows pet shops to only sell animals by working with Animal Care Services or rescue groups and provide space for those groups to ‘showcase’ adoptable dogs, rabbits and cats. … However, the pet shop cannot have any ownership interest in the animals offered or receive a fee for providing the space.”
It’s a local law that appears to have worked well. It was adopted out of community concern over puppy mills and unqualified breeders, the mistreatment of animals, and consistently high numbers of abandoned pets, all of which come at a cost that the city and taxpayers must bear. The ordinance was the community’s considered response to those concerns and others. The beauty of the ordinance is many groups whose volunteers work hard to find homes for abandoned pets benefit.
In these ways, the local ordinance expresses that animal welfare is a community value. It works for Columbus. It might not work for another city or town. That’s the entire point.
Dell went to Indianapolis last week to testify against SB134.
“If you want to have standards without taking away the local control, I don’t have a problem with that,” Dell told lawmakers. “But you take away the local control, you’re going to have a lot of people like myself, council members from all over the state, coming up here and beating on your doors, going ‘What are you people doing to us?’”
Lauer said he’s “generally skeptical of a one-size-fits-all attempt from the state level to come across a solution that may not fit every community. … So I appreciated Councilman Dell bringing down his experience and testifying at the Statehouse. I’ve got friends in the House on that committee, and they related to me that they appreciate hearing from our local councilman.”
As for retail pet sales in general, Lauer said, “… I think communities can, should be able to make their own local decisions about it.”
We’re glad to hear this, because on too many issues, this Indiana General Assembly has demonstrated an unhealthy eagerness to eliminate local decision making. We hope more voices in the Statehouse agree that state lawmakers who try to ban local control over things like pet store sales are barking up the wrong tree.
