An English bulldog puppy shot in the head, set on fire and dumped into a trash can. A mangy Doberman pinscher covered with oozing sores. Dozens of terriers crammed into wire cages only 18 inches tall, 2 feet wide and 3 feet deep.

These are the scenes painted by the few who have glimpsed the dark corners of Indiana’s large-scale dog-breeding operations.

Thanks to some of the country’s weakest animal-cruelty laws, Indiana is one of the nation’s leaders in churning out puppies and is a haven for irresponsible breeders. The industry is so thinly regulated that prosecutors and police can do little to stop blatant neglect and abuse.

Although many breeders are legitimate, interviews of veterinarians, animal-rights advocates, prosecutors and others by The Indianapolis Star reveal an industry in which many others embrace a troubling bottom line: produce puppies as fast and cheaply as possible and sell them, often to unsuspecting buyers at the expense of a dog’s health and well-being.

Breeding insiders estimate the state is home to 3,000 of these so-called puppy mills, fueling a $1.3 billion industry by producing tens of thousands of puppies a year, including untold numbers with genetic defects stemming from overbreeding.

In response, state lawmakers are trying to put a leash on the industry by subjecting breeders to state inspections, passing stricter animal-abuse laws and limiting how many dogs can be bred. The Humane Society of the United States is backing the bill and similar legislation in 32 other states.

“Many of these dogs live their whole lives in a cage. They’re never held, never touched, never allowed to walk on grass and never taken to a vet,” said Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, author of House Bill 1468, which would crack down on commercial breeders.

“It’s just deplorable, and it’s got to stop.”

Most of these breeders operate quietly on farms across Indiana, are not required to register with the state and are difficult to identify. Those who can be located are reluctant to talk.

The Star attempted to get a firsthand look at several breeding operations. In all, seven commercial breeders, and two organizations that represent them, either declined to comment for this story or did not return phone calls. Dozens more did not have listed telephone numbers.

Richard Frey, a commercial dog breeder in Shipshewana, was one of the few willing to speak. He said most breeders have been victimized by a handful of bad actors.

“All these horror stories they’ve brought into the (state) Capitol,” Frey said. “They’re just trying to give us a bad rap.”

He said he had “nothing to hide” and that he does not abuse dogs.

Frey, however, withdrew an invitation to tour his Lone Oak Pets operation, saying he had been pressured to do so by several other breeders who did not want public exposure to commercial kennels while the issue is being debated by lawmakers.

Under Indiana’s animal-cruelty law, owners only have to give pets food and water.

“A person can shoot their own dog and kill it, and there’s nothing we can do about it,” Putnam County Prosecutor Tim Bookwalter said. “There’s a hole in the law. It’s been a major problem.”

Two weeks ago, Bookwalter obtained a warrant to search a breeding operation on a Putnamville farm after receiving photos of abused dogs there.

When police officers arrived at the scene, they found 70 dogs in barns, living in squalor.

Among them was the bulldog puppy that had been shot because the breeder did not like its coloring, a Chihuahua with no fur left on its face and a Boston terrier that was too weak to walk.

Kim Nichols of the Putnam County Humane Society was there with a van ready to transport the abused dogs. But she left empty-handed. All the dogs had food and water, so no charges could be brought.

“I cried on the way home. It just broke my heart,” Nichols said. “The puppy mills think they can just breed and breed and breed and it’s OK as long as they make their money.”

Nichols now is caring for one such dog, Pumpkin, a blind and deaf cocker spaniel that she thinks was dumped by a breeder in a cornfield.

Pumpkin has all the tell-tale signs of an overbred dog, including just a few teeth left in her mouth because of all the calcium leached from her body.

Terre Haute veterinarian Michael Staub found many dogs in similar condition in October on a Sullivan County farm.

Police obtained a warrant to search the farm after some of its 300 dogs had turned up at local vets.

That’s where Staub treated the Doberman pinscher suffering from mange, saw terriers living in cramped cages and found an old bus filled with dogs. A dead Pomeranian had been discarded on top of a trash bin.

Police, again, could not press charges. Instead, they could only talk the owner into relinquishing 67 of the sickest dogs.

“You couldn’t look around that farm and tell me there wasn’t neglect and abuse going on, but under the state law, there wasn’t,” Staub said. “If we would have had this bill, they would have shut the place down.”

In the only recent known case of a commercial dog breeder facing prosecution, Tammy Gilchrist was charged in Owen County in February on five felony counts — of tax evasion.

The Indiana attorney general’s office began investigating Gilchrist after receiving complaints from customers who purchased dogs from her with genetic and other health problems.

The state learned she had failed to register to do business in Indiana and obtained a court order preventing her from selling dogs. That led to a raid by the Indiana State Police, in which 74 of her 150 dogs were seized — many of which were kept in pitch-black tool sheds, including a beagle with a failed C-section.

Gilchrist, who the state alleged owes $193,000 in back taxes, could not be reached for comment. Her case is pending.

One of Gilchrist’s customers was Rep. Trent Van Haaften, D-Mount Vernon, whose wife bought a schnoodle — a schnauzer-poodle mix — from the breeder last year. The family never saw her kennel; Gilchrist had brought the dog to their home.

The dog died two days later of parvovirus, an infection that causes diarrhea and vomiting.

“You don’t realize where some of these animals come from,” Van Haaften said. “Admittedly, we were bad consumers, but (with the legislation) we can protect consumers in the future.”

Commercial breeders said they don’t oppose strengthening the state’s animal-abuse laws or being subjected to state inspections, because they said doing so will root out the bad kennels.

But these breeders object to two provisions that, in their view, go too far — protections for consumers and a cap on how many dogs they can breed.

Under the legislation, buyers would be allowed to return puppies within 15 days if major health problems are discovered, and within a year if a genetic defect is found.

The bill also would limit the number of breeding females — or those that are not spayed — at 30.

“This 30-dog cap is really unreasonable, and it would put us out of business,” said Frey, who has 60 adult dogs in two buildings at his operation. “The amount of money we spend on vet bills, dog food and to take care of our animals — it wouldn’t be worth it anymore.”

Bob Kraft, director of state government for the Indiana Farm Bureau, agreed the cap would unfairly stymie the puppy industry.

“You’ve got to grow to be successful,” he said. “To put an arbitrary limit on how large you can be . . . doesn’t seem to be rational.”

That’s not how Lawson sees it.

She said even the large, commercial operations that keep their facilities clean and insist they take care of dogs can be homes to abuse.

With hundreds of dogs to keep track of, and few employees, Lawson said commercial breeders can’t give the dogs and puppies the care they deserve.

“When their business is threatened, of course they’re going to say they don’t do these terrible things to dogs,” she said. “That’s why we need this cap, because they want this to be treated as an agriculture crop. To them, it’s just a commodity, and that’s a travesty.”

But Rep. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, said stronger animal-abuse laws, not a cap, would address the problem. “Conduct is more important than the number of dogs,” he said. “Using a limit is being more arbitrary than it is being fair.”

Lawson’s original version of the bill passed the Democrat-controlled House by an 81-14 vote. But concerns from breeders and the farm bureau led to a compromise last week that eliminated the cap on dogs and the consumer protections, removed a requirement that dogs get daily exercise and erased other measures in the bill.

Supporters said the changes were necessary to get the legislation through the Republican-controlled Senate — and to keep the stronger animal-abuse provisions intact. But Lawson said she will push to reinsert those proposals in the legislation.

If the Senate passes the bill, it would move to a conference committee, where the two chambers would have until the April 29 legislative session deadline to iron out their differences.