2018 Local County Alerts
2018 Indiana General Assembly
We are watching the following bill:
HB 1386 – Commercial Dog Breeders. Assigned to the Commerce, Small Business & Economic Development Committee
This bill is dead for the 2018 Legislative Session!!
2014 Indiana General Assembly
We are watching the following bills:


SB 4 – Wild Animals on Airport Runways. Passed Senate and on to the House.

SB 6 – Animal Fighting Contests. Assigned to Corrections & Criminal Law Committee – no action so far.

SB 230 – Wild Animal Permits. Assigned to Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee – no action so far.

SB 295 – Commercial Dog Breeder Regulation – this is the bill that would regulate Rescue Organizations. Assigned to Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee – no action so far.

SB 361 – Dog Training and Game Breeder Enclosures. Assigned to Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee – no action so far.

SB 421 – Professional Licensing Matters – passed by Commerce Committee – waiting for full Senate to vote.

HB 1013 – Release of Animal Veterinary Records. Passed House and referred to Senate on 1/27.

HB 1090 – Wild Animal Permits – no action so far.

HB 1199 – Release of Feral Cats. Linda Lawson was added as co-author. Passed Committee on 1/27.

HB 1257 – Animal Neglect and Abandonment – Linda Lawson’s bill – no action so far.

HB 1400 – Companion Animal Sterilization Program – Linda Lawson’s bill for Medicaid recipients – no action so far.

For more info on these bills, go to http://iga.in.gov/.
Marion, Indiana
Proposed Animal Care Ordinance, Requiring the Sterilization of Dogs and Cats and Requiring a Breeder’s Permit




National, State, and Local Alerts
**Please contact us if you hear of new dog-related legislative proposals in Indiana**

2013 Indiana General Assembly
We are watching three bills, HB 1501, SB 598 and SB 600. So far, none of them have had a reading in their respective committees.
HB 1501 refers to offering low cost spay/neuter to Medicaid recipients. We testified against a similar bill in 2012 and will do so again if the Ways and Means Committee decides to hear it. This bill was sponsored by Rep. Linda Lawson.
SB 598 refers to proposed state regulation of Rescue Organizations and additional regulation of commercial dog breeders and brokers. We are against the premise of this bill and will support rescue organizations in their efforts to defeat it. It is assigned to the Commerce, Economic Development & Technology Committee. This bill is sponsored by Senator John Waterman.
SB 600 refers to regulation of animals and provides that a county, city or town may regulate the ownership, possession and harboring of animals. It is assigned to the Commerce, Economic Development & Technology Committee. This bill is sponsored by Senator Pete Miller.
Porter County (IN) Agrees to Rewrite Hobbyist Ordinance

Thanks to the efforts of numerous responsible dog owners, the Porter County Commission has agreed to not move forward with a 40-page proposal that would have imposed harsh requirements on hobbyists, including requiring anyone who breeds a litter or owns 5 intact “domestic pets” in a single year to comply with the standards and requirements established by the USDA for commercial breeding regulations, including periodic inspections.

Instead, the commission and other public officials will re-examine these issues and develop a new proposal. The AKC, local clubs, and the AKC’s state federation for Indiana continue to closely monitor this issue and work with Porter County officials to develop an effective, reasonable law that addresses their concerns without punishing responsible hobbyists and dog owners.


AKC Government Relations (AKC GR) will provide more details as they become available. For questions or more information, contact AKC GR at (919) 816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org.



Read IPDA’s Response to the USDA/APHIS


We are more than halfway through the public comment period on Docket APHIS-2011-0003 — comments will close on July 16th. Your clear and specific comments about the effect of the proposed new rule are the first defense against that rule going into effect. The more you comment the better chance we have for this rule to not take effect. As of now there are only about 1,800 comments and about half of them are from the ARs praising the new rule.

This new rule would require you to keep four or fewer breeding females and sell only their offspring which are raised only on your premises. Co-ownerships would count for both, so if you and a friend co-own two bitches then he/she can only have two others and you can only have two others. And this is NOT per species: Two intact female cats on your premises would max you out, even though your dogs are usually living with your friend.

You would have the choice of selling all dogs ONLY from your premises. No meeting halfway, no shipping. EVERY buyer would have to come to where the dogs are maintained. Although it isn’t now in the rule and APHIS indicates that meeting buyers in your living room would be enough, the ARs are already screaming that buyers should have the right to demand a complete tour of all parts of your home where you keep dogs because the whole purpose of this is to see that you are inspected by your buyers.



You would have to build an Animal Welfare Act compliant kennel and keep all of your breeding stock and puppies there. This would require you to accept no-notice inspections during normal working hours and it would be a discrepancy if you are not on hand when an inspector shows up. Do it again and fines are imposed — just as you would get for other repeated discrepancies.

Figure $50,000-up for a small kennel if you can get zoning approval and your neighbors don’t mind, and you are willing to have your locality and state consider you a business. Don’t forget that once you are USDA licensed there must always be someone on hand (during normal working hours) who is qualified to let an inspector in, explain your records, your veterinarian relationship, methods of identifying your dogs and keeping them separate in the various situations where the regulations require.

It is IMPERATIVE that dog, cat, and small animal breeders submit comments on this over-zealous proposed rule. Hobbies and livelihoods are at stake. APHIS needs to hear from breeders and rescuers on how this impacts your hobby. APHIS needs to hear how this proposed change impacts breeding programs if you cannot ship dogs/puppies/cats between friends and fellow breeders.

POST A COMMENT ONLINE via Federal eRulemaking Portal. GO TO THE PORTAL.




Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act


IPDA is very concerned about the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act, H.R. 835 and S. 707. This bill is currently sitting in Committee in both houses of Congress. The USDA/APHIS proposed rule is based upon it and is actually a back door to implementation of the Pups Bill. The following are highlights of why all responsible dog owners and hobby breeders should be opposed to PUPS.


· PUPS targets “anyone owning or co-owning one intact 4 month or older female breeding of dogs”, “High volume Retail Breeder” and “sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the internet, telephone or newspaper) more than 50 of the offspring of such breeding female dogs for use as pets in any 1 year period.” It makes criminals out of the vast majority of breeders who are responsible, law-abiding and caring individuals or establishments, deeply dedicated to the welfare of dogs.

· PUPS imposes higher standards for dog breeding than any other animal. Substandard and inhumane conditions, whether they be commercial operations or hobby kennels are subject to the strict enforcement of each State, County or Township’s animal welfare statutes.

· PUPS fails to improve upon existing animal welfare statutes. It does nothing to improve the current animal cruelty laws.

· PUPS is fiscally irresponsible, burdensome and unnecessary.

· PUPS restrictions would eliminate many competent, ethical hobby breeders dedicated to raising quality dogs by barring them from raising puppies in their homes.



Your voice in opposition to the PUPS bill is critical to the future of our sport! Help educate our federal regulators by writing them today!


Please contact your U.S. Congressman by using this URL:


Please contact your U.S. Senator by using this URL: http://www.senate.gov/




Hobart, IN: Ordinance committee will discuss possible BSL, July 18

Posted: 21 Jun 2012 08:04 AM PDT

A Hobart, IN, resident has asked city council for a “pit bull” ban. The city’s council moved the issue to the July 18 ordinance committee meeting, which will be devoted entirely to public dialogue on the issue.

Residents and locals, please attend the meeting and respectfully participate in the community dialogue. BSL has been suggested multiple times in Hobart in the past; most recently last November, when a different resident and a councilwoman both suggested BSL. Please take this opportunity to propose breed-neutral, effective solutions to the community’s irresponsible dog owner problem. The current animal ordinances can be viewed here.

Hobart City Hall, 414 Main Street, Hobart, Indiana 46342
Phone: 219-942-6112
Mayor Brian K. Snedecor, mayorsnedecor@city.hobart.in.us

Provide your educational materials and breed-neutral sample ordinances to the City Clerk prior to the July 18 meeting:
City Clerk, clerk-treasurer@city.hobart.in.us


Indiana HB 1331
HB 1331 was introduced by Representative Mike Speedy during the 2012 session of the Indiana General Assembly. This bill attempted to establish a fund for free companion animal sterilization for those receiving Medicaid through increased fees for rabies vaccinations and a pet food tax. IPDA members attended a committee hearing and testified against the bill. Some of our talking points were that there is no need for a free companion animal sterilization fund. There are 35 low cost spay/neuter clinics throughout the state of Indiana and 169 purebred rescue organizations that support the state of Indiana. Additionally, this bill would have increased the veterinary charges for rabies vaccinations for all companion animals and ultimately increase pet food prices to the Indiana consumer. The additional paperwork involved to maintain a database for Medicaid would have placed an undue burden on veterinarians and those who administer the Medicaid program in Indiana. The members of the committee hearing our testimony found the bill to be lacking in merit and the bill went no further.
August 16, 2010–Update on the campaign to have the IRS investigate HSUS:

We are closing in on the final touches of the Spay/Neuter the HSUS effort; this time (see below) it involves adding your information and signature to a one-page letter (attached) that you can print out and mail in less than five minutes.

Below is Frank’s Summary on what has been happening, and what needs to be done in the next phase: PLEASE PLEASE take a moment to print out and send your letter, forward to your club members, breed lists, and any friends and family members that will do the same. I have printed out separate letters to be signed by my own family members, and will mail them in separate envelopes. Yes, the letters will all be the same – don’t worry about that. NUMBERS MATTER:

Frank Losey’s latest:


Earlier this year the IRS received over 6,000 letters from concerned citizens in all 50 States who asked that the IRS audit the excessive lobbying activities of the HSUS. Those letters were not in vain as they laid the foundation for “FOLLOW-UPS” by me. One of the “FOLLOW-UPS” was to the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury (IG Office). Most significantly, that Office has assigned a case file number to my first submission to that Office that was dated April 15, 2010. That means that the IG OFFICE is aware of the more than 1,200 pages of incriminating, “smoking gun” documents that were provided to the IRS in 12 sequential submissions. These documents establish that the HSUS has EXCEEDED the IRS “TOO MUCH LOBBYING” prohibition for all tax-exempt, public charities.

Hundreds of lobbying activities of the HSUS are well documented in the above referenced 1,200+ pages. However, I believe that the following seven issues will be jaw-dropping “showstoppers” for the IG Office.

1. 6000+ letters to the IRS.

2. At least nine Members of Congress from seven different States have asked the IRS, on behalf of their constituents, to address their concerns about the excessive lobbying activities of the HSUS.

3. One of those Members of Congress has sent at least two letters to the IRS, and in his last letter he described activities of the HSUS to be a clear and direct violation of section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.”

4. HSUS claims that it was responsible for the enactment of more than 525 Federal and State Statutes and the passage of more than 25 State Ballot Initiatives.

5. Federal Election Commission documents that reference over 2,300 pages of lobbying activities of an HSUS affiliate that is managed by the two most senior HSUS Officers.

6. Missouri Ethics Commission documents that show that the HSUS has contributed over $700,000, to date, in support of a Ballot Initiative. These documents also raise an issue as to whether the HSUS has “laundered” other financial support of lobbying activities through surrogate organizations to conceal the magnitude of its lobbying activities.

7. Documentation that supports the assertion that in the last four years the HSUS has generated over 1.6 Billion “Take Action” lobbying-related E-Mails. If these “Take Action” lobbying-related E-Mails were stacked on top of one another, the stack would be over 100 MILES HIGH!


1. Take the time to download the attached letter; add your name and address, and mail it to the Office of the Inspector General (See Address at the top of the attached letter.)

2. Mail it by regular mail. No need to send it by Certified Mail.

3. Encourage your friends, relatives and acquaintances to do the same. Have copies printed to hand to them!

NUMBERS DO MATTER: If the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury receives thousands of letters that reference the above seven issues, IT WILL INCREASE THE PRESSURE ON THE IRS TO EXPEDITE, A THOROUGH, “WALL-TO-WALL” AUDIT OF THE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES OF THE HSUS. The “Clock” is ticking towards midnight for the HSUS! PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS NOW.

Frank Losey
Click here for the letter:
August 11, 2010–The city council of Anderson, IN is proposing mandatory spay/neuter and breeder licensing. Read the ordinance here:
Read IPDA’s response letter here:
Read AKC’s response letter here:
August 7, 2010–Representative Linda Lawson and HSUS director Anne Sterling move dogs from Indiana to New Hampshire. Rep. Lawson tells reporters she wants to introduce MANDATORY spay/neuter during the next legislative session. Let your representative know that mandatory spay/neuter INCREASES euthanasia in shelters and LOWERS licensing and vaccination compliance rates!! Read the full article here: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/hammond/article_b7bfa92e-6cb0-52da-83b3-861e130be177.html?mode=story
January 20, 2010 Indianapolis, IN–Legislation has been introduced in the statehouse to regulate pet stores that has the potential to affect hobby breeders through amendments if allowed to proceed. In addition, there are serious invasion of privacy issues in the bill. Please read below what you can do:


The hearing on HB 1258 was rescheduled to next Wednesday, January 27th, at 1:30 P.M. If any of you can clear your schedules and attend this hearing next week at the state house, please do so.
Although HB 1258 as currently written does not directly affect hobby breeders and exhibitors, unless this bill is defeated in committee, the potential for adding an amendment to it before it goes to the Senate is very much an issue. Any attempt to add back the damaging language that was stripped from last year’s HB 1468 could seriously affect the sport of purebred dogs.
IPDA members need to create a blitz at the state house between now and next Wednesday’s hearing. In order to do so, email messages should be sent to all of the Courts and Criminal Code Committee members, Caucus leaders, and phone calls made to each of them as well.
Here are some talking points on HB 1258 for your emails and phone calls:
1. Posting the name and address of the breeder and the facility where the dog or cat was born on the individual cages in the pet stores is an unnecessary invasion of privacy.
2. Publishing the number of litters the breeder produces on both the cage itself, as well as in the information provided when someone buys the dog doesn’t mean the dog came from a sub-standard breeder. Numbers don’t matter, but health, care and conditions do.
3. A new $25 tax on the sale of dogs. In the current economic climate, this is just plain wrong.
All state representatives can be reached at 317-232-9600. Their email addresses are as follows:
Brian Bosma, Republican Caucus Leader: h88@in.gov
Patrick Bauer, Democratic Caucus Leader: h6@in.gov
Committee Members:
Matt Pierce, Chairman: h61@in.gov
Nancy Dembowski, Vice Chairman: h17@in.gov
Ryan Dvorak: h8@in.glv
Linda Lawson: h1@in.gov
Greg Porter: h96@in.gov
Vernon Smith: h14@in.gov
Vern Tincher: h46@in.gov
Eric Koch, Ranking Minority Member: h65@in.gov
Jacqueline Clements: h38@in.gov
Ralph Foley: h47@in.gov
Greg Steuerwald: h40@in.gov
Randy Truitt: h26@in.gov
Let’s show the state legislators that we are tired of these ridiculous bills that do no one any good and only serve as window dressing for the HSUS and their anti-breeding campaign across the nation.
October 28, 2009 Bloomington, IN–Bloomington adopts pet limit ordinance. Read the story here: http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/south_central/Bloomington_adopts_pet_limit_ordinance_20091026


October 16, 2009 Bloomington, IN–Please read the proposed ordinance for Bloomington…they are attempting to prohibit “commercial” breeders within the city limits prior to HB 1468 taking effect–remember, municipalities have until the end of the year to enact stricter language! It restricts ownership of a combination of dogs/cats to 19 or less, and if you currently have over 19, you cannot replace any animals until you are in compliance with the numbers…no grandfathering!!

This ordinance re-inserts much of the restrictive language from HB 1468 with regard to breeding ages, permits, etc.

Read the ordinance here: http://bloomington.in.gov/media/media/application/pdf/5809.pdf

Bloomington Council:

Isabel Piedmont-Smith – piedmonti@bloomington.in.gov
Stephen Volan – volans@bloomington.in.gov
Timothy Mayer – mayert@bloomington.in.gov
Susan Sanberg – sandbers@bloomington.in.gov
Chris Sturbaum – sturbauc@bloomington.in.gov
Michael Satterfield – satterfm@bloomington.in.gov
September 16, 2009–Members of IPDA met with Indiana Department Of Revenue to clarify hobby breeders’ responsibility to pay sales tax on puppy and/or dog sales in Indiana. Please note the differences between income and sales tax, and, as with any tax situation, consult with your accountant.
IRS (Internal Revenue Service)
Please review
Example 3 in this document describes a hobby breeder and explains that certain dog activities are considered hobbies because they are determined not to be engaged in a for profit activity. IRS Publication 535, Chapter 1, page 5, Activity Not For Profit, and IRS Publication 525, page 30, has information dealing with Hobby Income. These publications can be viewed or downloaded from the IRS website. The 2008 U.S. Master Tax Guide, page 55, Checklist for Items of Income, lists Hobby Income as includible in income.

IDOR (Indiana Department of Revenue)
Three IPDA members met recently with the Tax Policy Division of the Indiana Department of Revenue. They specifically asked about the taxability of dogs and puppies sold by hobby breeders. According to Shane Corbin of the IDOR, all sales of dogs and puppies are subject to Indiana Sales Tax. Please review Shane’s letter attached to this message. IDOR follows Federal guidelines to determine if dog breeders are engaged in a business or hobby for income tax purposes, however, hobby breeders are to serve as the collection agent for the State of Indiana for sales tax purposes. Additionally, Shane’s letter describes the mechanism for hobby breeders to register, report and pay sales tax.
Read the letter here:

August 22, 2009–We have been made aware of the confiscation of some 47 Labrador Retrievers from a hobby breeder in Martinsville, Indiana. The report indicates that the breeder had fallen on hard times and was not able to give the dogs the proper care that he had provided them in the past. The report also indicated that the local authorities took the dogs to the Humane Society in Martinsville and that many of the dogs are in foster care. There was no report of HSUS involvement.
This is a wake up call for all of us. When the situation arises, hobby breeders need to be willing to ask for help from their fellow dog breeder friends. In this day and age of the animal rights movement, it is critical for hobby breeders to band together and watch out for each other. If there is a need, we should be willing to step in when necessary and stay alert to the needs of our fellow breeders.
We are in the process of determining what can be done to assist this hobby breeder. Further updates, if warranted, will be forthcoming.


August 22, 2009 AVMA Fires Back At HSUS–

AVMA report to congress disputes Pew Commission study
By Drovers news source (8/17/2009)

The nation’s largest veterinary association released to Congress a
scientific response that disputes several of the findings and
recommendations made in a report released last year by the Pew Commission on
Industrial Farm Animal Production.

In a letter sent with the AVMA’s response to members of the U.S. House of
Representatives and the U.S. Senate, Dr. Ron DeHaven, CEO of the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), expressed concerns about the Pew
Commission’s report and urged members to vote against H.R. 1549 and S. 619,
the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA) as they
are written. The Pew Commission’s findings and recommendations are being
used to advocate for PAMTA.

According to the letter to Congress, “The AVMA is the recognized national
voice for the veterinary profession. Our more than 78,000 members represent
approximately 86% of U.S. veterinarians, all of whom are involved in a
myriad of areas of veterinary medical practice including private, corporate,
academic, industrial, governmental, military, and public health services. It
is with this authority that we question the methods and outcomes of the Pew
Commission’s report on Industrial Farm Animal Production.”

The AVMA’s response raises issue with the scientific validity of several
critical areas of the Pew Commission’s report. Key findings from the AVMA’s
response include:

. The Pew Commission’s process for gaining technical expertise in the
Pew technical reports was biased and did not incorporate the findings and
suggestions of a significant number of participating academicians.

. Points in the Pew report that address antimicrobial resistance, the
environment and animal welfare were determined to be the most pertinent to
veterinary medicine. In these areas, the AVMA asserts that many of the Pew
Commission’s sub-points have significant shortfalls and lack information as
to how the Commission would execute a new plan or program.

. The Pew Commission’s recommendations for highly restrictive bans on
antibiotic use, which are also being used to advocate for PAMTA, have not
been proven beneficial to public health. When Denmark and the Netherlands
made an attempt to implement less restrictive bans on antibiotics than those
recommended by Pew, they found that even a small decrease in antibiotic use
severely diminished animal health and welfare without significantly
improving human health.



HSUS blasts AVMA’s stance on Pew report
Bovine Veterinarian magazine (8/21/2009)

In an August 19th blog on the HSUS website, CEO Wayne Pacelle calls into
question AVMA’s commitment to the Veterinarian’s Oath (read the full blog
here). Excerpts include: “The HSUS doesn’t shrink from its responsibility to
take on industries that cause or defend animal abuse.but it’s startling when
we have to call out groups that should stand in the forefront of animal
protection but are part of the problem when it comes to the mistreatment of

“That is, sadly, the case with the American Veterinary Medical Association
(AVMA).. it’s been our experience that AVMA policies are out of step with a
large share of veterinarians and the organization typically takes unfriendly
positions on many of the major animal welfare questions of the day.

“This week, the AVMA issued a report attacking the prestigious Pew
Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, which had expressed support
for a variety of important reforms in the realm of industrial agriculture,
including federal legislation to end the widespread, routine use of
sub-therapeutic antibiotics on factory farms. The Pew Commission endorsed
legislation to phase out the use of antibiotics for non-therapeutic purposes on factory
farms.dozens of other major public health groups support the legislation
because they fear the consequences of agribusiness’s misuse of antibiotics
to keep animals in overcrowded, inhumane, and often unsanitary conditions.
But the AVMA is staunchly opposed to the bill.”

Editor’s comments

I contacted the AVMA and asked if they would like to reply to this HSUS
blog, and their quick response to me was not only appreciated, but right on

Ron DeHaven, DVM, AVMA’S CEO said: “Once again, Mr. Pacelle has resorted to
misleading statements. His attempt to paint the AVMA and veterinarians in a
negative light is little more than an attempt to raise more money for his
organization. Veterinarians choose their careers because they care about
animals. At the same time, veterinarians understand that, when it comes to
animal welfare, a knee-jerk response based solely on emotion, not science,
might not be in the best interest of animals.

“For example, the AVMA’s stance against a ban on horse processing in the
United States was not taken because we are ‘pro-slaughter,’ but because we
know there is a large population of unwanted horses in this country, and
feared what would happen if those horses couldn’t be humanely euthanized in
a regulated environment. Unfortunately, our fears have come true and have
been made worse by the current economic climate. Large numbers of horses are
being abandoned and left to starve across the country. Mr. Pacelle’s stance
has only increased the suffering of horses in the United States.

“Mr. Pacelle is ignoring the legitimate concerns of animal welfare
scientists and veterinarians, and misleading the American public to further
his organization’s agenda,” continued DeHaven. “If he truly cared about the
welfare of animals, he would not be so quick to criticize and minimize the
input of veterinary experts.” Well said!

Obviously, HSUS is frustrated that they are not controlling AVMA, so
therefore they are slinging as much mud as they can, and using this
opportunity to bolster their Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association
and other groups.

Pacelle finished his blog with, “We’d like some day to stand shoulder to
shoulder with the AVMA on matters relating to the defense of animals. But
too often, we stand on opposite sides of the major policy debates for animal
welfare in America.” So in other words, if AVMA toes the line with HSUS’s
“vast” food-animal welfare knowledge, they’ll stand shoulder-to-shoulder
with them, but until then, HSUS will try to drag AVMA – and any other food
animal veterinary organizations — down by any means possible. Let’s make
sure that doesn’t happen.

Geni Wren, Editor

Bovine Veterinarian



Susan Wolf

Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance – http://saova.org
Issue lobbying and working to identify and elect supportive legislators



August 20, 2009 Elkhart, IN–Elkhart’s city council is considering an animal control ordinance that includes banning pit bulls and other restrictive measures. Read the ordinance in its entirety:
What you can do: Contact Elkhart City Council members and let them know you oppose the new ordinance. Click on the link for council contact information.
1st District Councilman
Dave Osborne [D]
1102 McPherson St.
Elkhart, IN 46514
Home: 574-266-5609
Cell: 574-320-6227
Email Council Member
2nd District Councilman
Brian A. Thomas [R]
914 Strong Ave.
Elkhart, IN 46514
Home: 574-293-1862
Cell: 574-596-7411
3rd District Councilman
David E. Henke [R]
1752 Crabtree Ln.
Elkhart, IN 46514
Home: 574-264-3586
Cell: 574-596-6413
Email Council Member
4th District Councilman
Ron Troyer [D]
1105 Princeton Blvd.
Elkhart, IN 46516
Home: 574-295-7787
Cell: 574-370-8647
Email Council Member
5th District Councilman
Brent Curry [D]
2312 Hawthorne Dr.
Elkhart, IN 46516
Home: 574-294-5605
Fax: 574-389-1734
Email Council Member
6th District Councilman
Tonda Hines [D]
710 S. Ninth St.
Elkhart, IN 46516
Cell: 574-596-5524
Email Council Member
At-Large Councilwoman
Mary M. Olson [R]
1632 Brookstone Ct.
Elkhart, IN 46514
Home: 574-262-3222
Email Council Member
At-Large Councilman
Ralph Bean [D]
1135 Kenmore Ave.
Elkhart, IN 46514
Home: 574-264-6517
Cell: 574-903-6163
Email Council Member
At-Large Councilman
Rod Roberson [D]
146 Los Angeles Ave.
Elkhart, IN 46516
Home: 574-295-6420
Cell: 574-612-2279
Email Council Member

July 22, 2009 Indianapolis, IN—Attorneys retained in the Harrison County tax jeopardy case filed a “Brief In Support Of Their Objection To Proceedings Supplemental And Motion To Correct Errors” on behalf of Virginia Garwood and Kristin Garwood. The brief cites that the Garwoods were denied due process, in that they were denied a hearing by the State, and that the amount of sales tax due to the State of Indiana was incorrectly calculated. The Garwoods filed a Petition with the Indiana Tax Court asking that it review the assessment of taxes, and requesting that the Tax Court prevent the State from collecting monies from the Garwoods to satisfy the alleged tax due.

August 3, 2009 Indianapolis, IN–IPDA members met today with staff of the Attorney General’s office. The Harrison County raid was discussed in detail. The AG staff presented the case based on Indiana Law, and IPDA will give facts that can be found in the tax code and from our conversation with the AG’s office. Other information, pro or con, is conjecture, and will not be posted until verified.
The Attorney General’s office acted at the direction of the Indiana Department of Revenue. The DOR determined that the Harrison County situation falls under the tax jeopardy statute. The Department can issue the jeopardy tax assessment without notice, and demand immediate payment of the taxes due. Per the law, jeopardy tax assessments are used when the assessment or collection of a tax is determined to be at risk. Under such circumstances, the DOR is authorized to make an immediate assessment without following the procedure required for an ordinary assessment, and then may proceed to collect the tax as assessed without delay. The IRS and every state have the power to assert jeopardy assessments. The tax code relating to this issue is Ind. Code 6-8.1-5-3 and reads in part as follows: the department may make a jeopardy tax assessment at any time if it finds that an individual owing taxes intends to: (1) quickly leave the state; (2) remove his property from the state; (3) conceal his property in the state; or (4) do any other act that would jeopardize the collection of those assets.
The Indiana DOR follows this guidance: if a business fails to : (1) register with the DOR; (2) additionally fails to register with the Secretary Of State; (3) keep tax and business records; (4) collect and remit trust taxes (sales taxes or wage withholding taxes); (5) file a trust tax return; or (6) file an income tax return. The DOR considers the business to be engaged in an illegal business activity, and therefore performing an act that jeopardizes tax collection. All of the above-specified failures constitute tax crimes under Indiana’s tax code and most are felonies. The commission of these acts of omission prevents the DOR from properly auditing the business and determining the taxes owed to the state.

If the individual is unable or unwilling to make immediate payment, the Department may at once file a jeopardy tax warrant with the court. Once the warrant is filed, final judgement has been rendered, and the Department can seize the taxpayer’s inventory and bank accounts. The Department can sell the inventory and apply the sales proceeds against the tax judgment. In the Harrison County case, the dogs were purchased by the HSUS for $300. This is well under market value, and the Attorney General’s office points out that this is no different than any other state sanctioned tax sale where merchandise is sold for pennies on the dollar. According to the Attorney General’s staff, first consideration was given to HSUS to purchase the inventory because they supplied support staff and equipment during the seizure of the animals.

July 29, 2009 Muncie, IN–Delaware County Council voted unanimously to withdraw the ordinance that would impose a $5 per dog annual tax on dog owners. The tax was part of a larger plan to consolidate city and county animal control, and then outsource the service to the Muncie Delaware County Humane Society.
July 24, 2009 Muncie, IN–Council will meet on July 28, 2009. This is the legislative body that will vote on the dog tax and there is still time to make contact and ask them to vote against the County Option Dog Tax. See the June 24, 2009 alert on this page for Muncie Council & Commissioner contact information.
July 20, 2009 Elkhart, IN–A 4 year old Elkhart girl continues to recover at an Indianapolis hospital, after her nose was bitten off by a pit bull. Four year old Demonica Paul was playing with friends in her Elkhart neighborhood Thursday when she was attacked. This all comes as Elkhart city leaders are considering a new ordinance that could ban pit bulls. Alternatively, city leaders say they could require licenses, shots, registration, and even insurance for pit bull owners.
What you can do: Let Elkhart city leaders know that you oppose breed-specific legislation. Contact information is listed below.
Mayor Dick Moore (574)294-5471 x240

City Clerk Sue Beadle (574)522-5272

City Council Email Addresses: dave.osborne@coei.org (1st District) brian.thomas@coei.org (2nd District) dave.henke@coei.org (3rd District) ron.troyer@coei.org (4th District) brent.curry@coei.org (5th District) mary.olson@coei.org (At Large) ralph.bean@coei.org (At Large) rodregina@comcast.net (At Large) thines@elkhart.k12.in.us (6th District)
July 8, 2009 Indianapolis, IN–City-County Councillor Mike Speedy is proposing an ordinance that would specifically target Pit Bulls. Click the link to read the latest:
July 1, 2009 Indiana (Statewide)–
Please remember that municipalities have between now and December 31, 2009 to define and enact stricter regulations for “Commercial Breeders”. Watch your local newspapers and check county and city websites for information on upcoming proposals that may affect your area!
June 24, 2009 Muncie, IN–
The Muncie Delaware County Humane Society (Indiana) has submitted a proposal to the County Council and Commissioners which would include imposing a tax on dogs as well as changing the county’s current 3-year rabies immunization protocol to one requiring a yearly rabies booster for all dogs and cats in order to obtain a license.
What you can do:
Contact the Delaware County Council and Commissioners and ask them to reject the portion of the Humane Society’s proposal which would change the current 3-year rabies ordinance.
County Commissioners’ Telephone Number (765)747-7730, Fax (765)747-7899. County Council Fax (765)741-3422
Larry Blesdoe, Jr. lbledsoe@co.delaware.in.us
County Council:
Kevin Nemyer knemyer@aol.com

Bradley Bookout 522-5272

City Council Email Addresses: dave.osborne@coei.org (1st District) brian.thomas@coei.org (2nd District) dave.henke@coei.org (3rd District) ron.troyer@coei.org (4th District) brent.curry@coei.org (5th District) mary.olson@coei.org (At Large) ralph.bean@coei.org (At Large) rodregina@comcast.net (At Large) thines@elkhart.k12.in.us (6th District)
July 8, 2009 Indianapolis, IN–City-County Councillor Mike Speedy is proposing an ordinance that would specifically target Pit Bulls. Click the link to read the latest:
July 1, 2009 Indiana (Statewide)–
Please remember that municipalities have between now and December 31, 2009 to define and enact stricter regulations for “Commercial Breeders”. Watch your local newspapers and check county and city websites for information on upcoming proposals that may affect your area!
June 24, 2009 Muncie, IN–
The Muncie Delaware County Humane Society (Indiana) has submitted a proposal to the County Council and Commissioners which would include imposing a tax on dogs as well as changing the county’s current 3-year rabies immunization protocol to one requiring a yearly rabies booster for all dogs and cats in order to obtain a license.
What you can do:
Contact the Delaware County Council and Commissioners and ask them to reject the portion of the Humane Society’s proposal which would change the current 3-year rabies ordinance.
County Commissioners’ Telephone Number (765)747-7730, Fax (765)747-7899. County Council Fax (765)741-3422
Larry Blesdoe, Jr. lbledsoe@co.delaware.in.us
County Council:
Kevin Nemyer knemyer@aol.com

Bradley Bookout bradleybookout@comcast.net

Ron Quackenbush rqdldtydist2@yahoo.com
Learn more about the Rabies Challenge Fund: http://www.RabiesChallengeFund.org