We are located in Frankfort, Indiana. We are in TPA Park past the skating rink. Frankfort is halfway between Indianapolis and Lafayette. DIRECTIONS TO OUR SHELTER: From Indianapolis: Take I-65 N to IN28 E(exit 158) to Jackson Street, turn left (north). Go north on Jackson St. through two stoplights and over the railroad tracks until you come to a stop sign. Turn right (east) on Kyger Street at this stop sign. Stay on Kyger until the road crosses over a small bridge (golf course on your left) and turn left (north) into TPA Park. Follow the road through the park keeping to your left until you come to the fork in the road by the skating rink and veer right. Stay on this road until you see the shelter on your righthand side. *If you are closer to Michigan Rd., just go north on 421 until you reach 28W and turn left. Follow this road into Frankfort turning right (north) onto Jackson St. and following the above directions. From Lafayette: Take I-65 S to IN28 E(exit 158) Follow the above directions from IN28.

Breed Specific Prohibited or Restricted Ordinances This is a summary of statutory and case law provisions that AVMA is aware of addressing the adoption of breed specific local ordinances and state laws. For a number of years Ohio had been the only state in the country with breed-specific legislation enacted at the state level. However, in February 2012, the portion of Ohio statute that defined pit bulls as “vicious dogs” was repealed. Several states statutorily prohibit breed specific local ordinances (see below). A review of state case law indicates that a few jurisdictions allow municipalities to adopt breed-specific ordinances. Courts in other states with no specific legislation may also uphold measures restricting breeds of dogs. Allows breed specific ordinances pertaining to only mandatory spay/neuter programs and breeding requirements. Provides that no specific dog breed or mix shall be declared potentially dangerous or vicious in city or county ordinances.

Municipality may adopt any rule or law for the control of dangerous dogs though it may not regulate dangerous dogs in a manner that is specific to breed. Morkie Puppies For Adoption In WisconsinHowever, pursuant to a state Supreme Court decision, municipalities with home rule can adopt breed-specific measures.T Shirt Printing Victorville Ca Connecticut​ Provides that no municipality may adopt breed-specific dog ordinances.​ Foreclosed Homes For Sale In Hedgesville Wv Grandfathers any ordinance adopted prior to October 1, 1990 and prohibits local governments from adopting regulations pertaining to dangerous dogs or the implementation of measures that are specific to breed. Local government is prohibited from adopting animal control ordinances or regulations that are specific to breed.

Prohibits municipalities from adopting ordinances, laws or regulations that are breed-specific. ​In an action against a person other than an owner of a dog for damages for personal injury or death caused by the dog, the common law of liability relating to attacks by dogs against humans that existed on April 1, 2012, is retained as to the person without regard to the breed or heritage of the dog. ​No dog shall be deemed dangerous based on the breed of the dog. Also, no city or town shall regulate dogs in a manner specific to breed. Cities and counties are prohibited from adopting ordinances regulating dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs based solely on the breed of the dog. Prohibits breed specific ordinances. Dangerous dog control programs may not be specific to breed. State law requires owners of "dangerous" or "vicious" dogs to follow additional guidelines. Local government is prohibited from adopting ordinances or regulations addressing potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs that are specific to breed.

Local ordinances dealing with dogs may not prohibit or limit a specific breed of dog. ​Prevents cities and town from enacting any regulation or ordinance specific to any particular breed of dog, cat or other animal.​ Prohibits counties and municipalities from placing additional restrictions or requirements on dangerous dogs if they are specific to breed. ​Prohibits a local government from enacting, maintaining, or enforcing any ordinance, policy, resolution, or other enactment that is specific as to the breed or perceived breed of a dog. ​A municipality may not adopt or enforce a breed-specific rule, regulation, policy, or ordinance regarding dogs. Any breed-specific rule, regulation, policy, or ordinance regarding dogs is void. Prohibits finding a dog dangerous or vicious solely on breed and does not allow local governing bodies to adopt ordinances prohibiting a certain breed. Court Cases – Specific to JurisdictionArkansas - Supreme Court of Arkansas found a city ordinance prohibiting the keeping of particular breeds of dogs, including the American Pit Bull Terrier, within the city of Maumelle, was sufficiently definite to withstand challenge as to vagueness.

(Holt v. City of Maumelle, 1991) Kansas - Supreme Court of Kansas found a local Pit Bull ordinance 1.) classifying that breed and others as dangerous and 2.) requiring special registration and keeping requirements for such breeds was a legitimate exercise of municipal police power. (Hearn v. City of Overland Park, 1989) Iowa - Supreme Court of Iowa upheld a municipal ordinance classifying pit bulls and other breeds as "vicious dogs" and requiring specific licensing and keeping standards for such breeds. (American Dog Owners Association v. City of Des Moines, 1991) Maryland - Appellate court applied strict liability against an owner who owns a pit bull or a pit bull cross who attacks a human. When an attack involves pit bulls, it is no longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are dangerous. (Tracey v. Solesky, Maryland Court of Appeals, Sept. 2012)  In April 2014, HB 73 was passed stating that in an action against a person other than an owner of a dog for damages for personal injury or death caused by the dog, the common law of liability relating to attacks by dogs against humans that existed on April 1, 2012, is retained as to the person without regard to the breed or heritage of the dog.

Missouri - Missouri Court of Appeals, held as constitutional an ordinance prohibiting the possession of pit bulls, even where such ordinance did not define the term "pit bull." (City of Pagedale v. Murphy, 2004) New Mexico - New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld a local ordinance banning ownership or possession of American Pit Bull Terriers. (Garcia v. Village of Tijeras, 1988) Ohio - Ohio Supreme Court found a city ordinance limiting the number of Pit Bulls per household constitutional. (The decision was issued before repeal of the state statute that classified pit bulls as vicious. Toledo vs. Tellings, 2007) Washington - local court upheld a municipal Pit Bull/Pit Bull mix ban, finding that it was not unconstitutionally vague. (American Dog Owners Association v. City of Yakima, 1989) Wisconsin - Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld an ordinance restricting the ownership of "pit bull" dogs as constitutionally sound. The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to review that Court's decision.