Pet bill snatches local control from Oklahoma communities

March 18, 2026

A bill to remove local control from communities in favor of out-of-state, corporate puppy mill peddlers has passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

House Bill 4335 would prohibit any city or county from restricting or banning retail pet sales unless an individual pet store or commercial breeder has received three or more convictions over five years for violating the state’s commercial pet breeders and animal shelter licensing act.

The House voted to pass HB 4335 on March 4, 68-26. During debate, the bill author, Speaker Pro Tem Anthony Moore (R-Clinton) compared banning pet stores to hypothetically banning the sale of new trucks or restricting people from having children, calling such restrictions “ridiculous.” From our point of view, it's ridiculous that Moore did not talk about the fact that animals are sentient beings with welfare needs, so businesses that sell them carry ethical responsibilities that don’t exist for businesses selling inanimate products like cars.

Moore also said that HB 4335 gives municipalities new enforcement frameworks where none previously existed. “We’re creating a cause of action for cities where they don’t have one already,” he said. He was referring to the provision in the bill that a municipal or county government cannot ban a pet store or breeder unless they have received three convictions of the state’s commercial pet breeder law. The problem with Moore’s assertion is that, under current state law, Oklahoma municipalities and counties already have the authority to ban retail pet sales. HB 4335 removes that authority going forward.

Representative Mickey Dollens debated against HB 4335, arguing that it undermines local control by preventing future municipal bans on commercial pet retailers, even though it grandfathers existing bans in cities like Midwest City and Jenks. Indeed, the fact that these cities have banned retail pet sales proves that they don’t need HB 4335 to give them enforcement authority. The bill does the opposite—it takes away local control from communities.

The Legislature has used the concept of state preemption before to prohibit local governments from passing ordinances regulating some industries, including oil and gas, firearms, and tobacco.

HB 4335 takes decision‑making away from Oklahoma communities and hands it to out‑of‑state corporate interests. Our communities know their own needs, but the bill takes away their ability to respond to real consumer and animal‑welfare problems. Protecting local control aligns with conservative principles about government overreach.

What lawmakers say about HB 4335

The bill advanced to the House floor following its passage from the House Government Oversight Committee on February 24 by a vote of 13-6.

Representative Ellen Pogemiller (D-Oklahoma City) questioned the need to preemptively prohibit communities from banning retail pet sales given that communities are already dealing with pet overpopulation, overcrowded shelters, and cases of animal cruelty among state licensed commercial pet breeders.

Representative Jim Shaw (R) pointed out that HB 4335’s requirement for three convictions within five years could create an unachievable enforcement standard. Shaw referenced a 2025 case in his district where a puppy mill operator in Stroud received a multitude of complaints over a fourteen-year span for keeping hundreds of dogs in inhumane conditions despite holding a valid breeder’s license.

Shaw asked whether the enforcement methods in place make it unlikely that anyone would ever reach the “three strikes” threshold for banning a breeder or pet store.

Years of complaints

Until more than 400 Maltese dogs were seized by law enforcement last year, the puppy mill in Stroud received numerous complaints over the years but still held a state-issued commercial pet breeder license.

The owner of Add Love Pets, LLC and Pink Poodle Grooming, Jerry Hine, held a commercial breeders license since at least 2011, according to information obtained from the Department of Agriculture via an open records request. Hine renewed it on July 1, 2025, only weeks before the dogs were seized. His application said he had ninety dogs.

In July 2025, thirteen different complaints were submitted to the Department of Agriculture, the state agency responsible for enforcing the commercial pet breeder law. One complainant, an animal rescue volunteer, alleged Hine was housing hundreds of puppies in hot, overcrowded, unsanitary conditions.

“Puppies were dirty and kept in their own fecal matter. They did not have access to fresh water. Healthier puppies were shown up front and owner stated that ‘the worst ones were in the back,’” the complaint stated.

Multiple times during 2023 and 2024, Department of Agriculture inspectors visited the strip mall where the puppy mill operated. They reported ungroomed dogs (as many as eight to a crate), the strong smell of ammonia, incomplete animal health records, and other violations.

This case is not an isolated “bad actor,” as Moore said. In March 2024, Humane World for Animals rescued hundreds of dogs from two puppy mills in Milburn, Oklahoma. Workers observed dogs of different breeds living in bare concrete or dirt-bottomed, unsanitary enclosures with no enrichment items, often stepping in their own feces, according to a news release by Humane World for Animals.

Corporate lobbyists behind HB 4335

The bill is being pushed through the Oklahoma Legislature at the behest of the Pet Advocacy Network, a nonprofit that represents retail pet sellers and breeders such as Petland, which operates retail pet stores in Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Elizabeth Kunzelman—Petland’s vice president of legislative and public affairs—serves as vice chair of the Pet Advocacy Network board of directors.

The Pet Advocacy Network are advancing a coordinated national strategy to pass state preemption bills like HB 4335—legislation designed to block cities from banning or regulating retail pet sales and to keep the puppy‑mill supply chain insulated from local oversight. Their model bills have appeared across the country, including Texas’s sweeping HB 2127 and repeated attempts in Florida, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Hawaii, all aimed at stripping municipalities of authority after hundreds of cities enacted local pet‑sale bans.

According to a 2025 report commissioned by the Florida attorney general’s office, high‑volume pet retailers in Florida routinely sold sick or misrepresented puppies, leaving families with steep veterinary bills. The same report found that these retailers relied on predatory financing products with interest rates up to 35.99 percent APR, and it noted that complaints dropped sharply in one county after the AG secured a consent judgment against a Petland franchise.