Dangerous Dogs

Overview

Washington State regulates "dangerous dogs" and imposes requirements and restrictions on their owners in Ch. 16.08 RCW. These laws define and distinguish between "dangerous dogs," which are regulated under Ch. 16.08 RCW, and "potentially dangerous dogs," which are regulated by locally adopted ordinances.

Some jurisdictions define wolf-hybrids as exotic or dangerous animals and prohibit them. Other jurisdictions define wolf-hybrids as dangerous dogs and regulate them accordingly. In adopting ordinances based on Ch. 16.08 RCW, some jurisdictions define "potentially dangerous dog" and/or "dangerous dog" to include references to specific breeds (such as the pit bull terrier). However, in 2019 the Washington State Legislature enacted RCW 16.08.110, which requires localities to meet certain requirements before prohibiting or regulating dogs based on their breed (see the “Breed Specific Regulations” section below).

Dangerous dog issues can be quite contentious, often because dog owners frequently have an emotional attachment to their pets that gives them a very different perspective than neighbors or others who feel threatened or have been injured. If a local government's regulations are not carefully crafted, litigation can result. You are encouraged to review the information on this page carefully so that this issue doesn't come back to bite you!

Statutes

Dogs

Chapter 16.08 RCW contains statutes that relate specifically to a municipality’s ability to regulate dangerous dogs. In particular, see:

• ​RCW 16.08.070(1) and (2) — Defines "potentially dangerous dog" and a "dangerous dog."
• RCW 16.08.080 — Sets forth the basic procedures that cities and counties must follow when declaring dogs as dangerous and places significant responsibilities on dangerous dog owners. It also allows local jurisdictions to impose more restrictive conditions on dangerous dog owners and does not require local jurisdictions to allow dangerous dogs within their jurisdiction.
• RCW 16.08.090(1) — Makes it unlawful for the dangerous dog owners owner to permit the dog to be outside of a proper enclosure unless it is muzzled and properly restrained. "Proper enclosure is defined in RCW 16.08.070(4).
• RCW 16.08.090(2) — Recognizes local government authority to regulate potentially dangerous dogs and that state law does not limit those regulations.
• RCW 16.08.100 — Addresses penalties and defenses
• RCW 16.08.110 — Requires breed-specific regulations to include an exemption for dogs that pass the American Kennel Club Canine Good Citizen test or a “reasonable equivalent.”

Dangerous Wild Animals

Chapter 16.30 RCW contains statutes that relate specifically to a municipality’s ability to identify and regulate wild animals. In particular, see:

• RCW 16.30.010 — Defines "potentially dangerous wild animals" to include wolves but exclude wolf-hybrids. Several measures have been proposed to include wolf-hybrids as potentially dangerous wild animals, but none have passed.
• RCW 16.30.050 — Allows (but does not require) cities or counties to adopt local ordinances governing potentially dangerous wild animals that are more restrictive than chapter 16.30 RCW. 

Breed-Specific Regulations and Good Behavior Exemption

In adopting ordinances based on chapter 16.08 RCW, some jurisdictions define "potentially dangerous dog" and/or "dangerous dog" to reference specific breeds (such as the pit bull terrier), making their restrictions on "potentially dangerous dogs" or "dangerous dogs" apply automatically to a specific breed

Still other jurisdictions have adopted ordinances completely banning ownership of particular breeds, including pit bulls, wolf-hybrids, and others.  Effective January 1, 2020, local breed-specific regulations are only enforceable if they include a “good behavior” exception for such dogs (see RCW 16.08.110).

The good behavior exception allows owners to possess otherwise-prohibited dog breeds if the dog has passed the American Kennel Club Canine Good Citizen Test (or a reasonably equivalent canine behavioral test). Dogs that pass this test are exempt from breed-based regulations for at least two years and must be given a reasonable chance to maintain the exemption through re-testing. Dogs that fail the test are also required to be given the opportunity to re-test.

Ordinance Provisions

There are some commonalities among the examples of city and county ordinances listed below. Most require specialized licensing and certificates of registration for the keeping of dangerous dogs. Some require such dogs to be kept under human control at all times (such as on a chain, muzzled and/or within a defined enclosure), some define behavior that makes a dog dangerous (such as causing injury to humans, another domestic animal, or livestock), and some define the conditions under which the dog owner would be penalized (e.g., biting, attacking, or running loose) and/or the animal may be impounded. Some ordinances require that a dangerous dog be microchipped and the owner post signs warning the public about the dog, or the owner purchases surety bonds and/or liability insurance.

In many cases, police dogs are exempt from dangerous dog designations. Most municipalities will also not declare a dog dangerous if it has attacked a person who is trespassing on the dog owner's private property or who had been tormenting, abusing, or otherwise provoking the dog.

Examples of Ordinances

• Auburn Municipal Code Ch. 6.35 — Offers possible permit exemption for dogs that complete AKC's Canine Good Citizen program; requires dangerous dogs to be leashed, muzzled, and walked by someone over the age of 16 when outside of a kennel.
• Bellingham Municipal Code Ch. 7.08.130-170 — Requires dangerous dogs be kept in an enclosure, and outside of one, be muzzled, restrained by a leash, and under the control of someone over 18 years of age; owners pay an annual fee of $100 per location.
• Buckley Ordinance No. 30-19 (2019) — Amends the prohibition against owning specific dog breeds considered dangerous, allowing an exemption if the dog complete AKC's Canine Good Citizen program or a reasonably equivalent test.
• Clark County Code Ch. 8.18 — Allows animal control to impound a dog if it is not licensed, is not maintained inside a proper enclosure, is found outside the owner’s property, and/or the owner does not have liability insurance
• Des Moines Municipal Code Ch. 8.16 — Requires dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs to wear a bright orange collar, not less than two inches in width, at all times.
• Eatonville Ordinance No. 2015-6 (2015)  — Removes breed-specific language in favor of expanding definition to dangerous animals that inflicts severe injury or kills an animal or human without provocation, including when two or more animals participate in an attack on a human or another animal. 
• Enumclaw Municipal Code Ch. 7.08.020 — Includes a breed-specific ban on pit bulls. Ordinance No. 2659 (2019) keeps the ban on pit bulls intact but exempts dogs that complete AKC's Canine Good Citizen program.
• Everett Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Chapter 6.08 (2019) — Removes the breed-specific ban on pit bulls in Ch. 6.08.
• Lakewood Municipal Code 6.10 — Requires dangerous dogs be microchipped, and a sign be conspicuously displayed on the owner's property noting the dangerous dog.
• Mill Creek Municipal Code Ch. 6.08 — Provides that a dog will not be deemed dangerous if it threatens, injures, or bites a person who was trespassing on the owner’s property, committing or attempting to commit a crime, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog, or who had been observed or reported to have tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog in the past; specifically exempts police dogs from the designation.
  • Potentially Dangerous Dog Declaration — Warning served to owners with a dog found to be potentially dangerous.
  • Dangerous Dog Declaration — Ticket served to dangerous dog owners; explains requirements, hearing, and appeal process.
• Oak Harbor Municipal Code Ch. 7.32 — Equates keeping of dangerous dog a public nuisance, subject to standard abatement procedures.
• Pasco Municipal Code Sec. 6.05.330 (6) — Offers a permit exemption for potentially dangerous animals (defined in 6.05.010 ) that have completed AKC's Canine Good Citizen program; requires biannual retesting.
• San Juan County Ch. 6.08 — Sections .091-130 defines a dangerous dog, the owner’s responsibility/requirements, and the process for addressing violations. In particular, section 110 notes that if a dog has killed or injured a domestic animal or livestock, the dog owner is liable for damages up to the estimated values listed in the code.
• Tacoma Municipal Code Ch. 17.04 — Requires an annual inspection of the enclosure/pen of any dog deemed potentially dangerous, plus an annual and one-time registration fee.
• Waterville Municipal Code Ch. 6.24 — Automatically defines a number of animals as dangerous, including wolf, coyote, wolf-dog, or coyote-dog hybrid, large felines, any member of the crocodile family, or poisonous reptiles. 
• Yakima Municipal Code Sec. 6.20.130 — Defines three levels of increasingly aggressive behavior exhibited by dangerous dogs. Ord. 2018-029 (2018) repeals the municipal code chapter banning pit bulls. 

Selected Court Decisions

State v. Richards (2023) — A county ordinance requiring the muzzling and restraint of dangerous dogs was found not void for vagueness or in conflict with state law. Instead, the ordinance contained “sufficiently definite” language to give persons “fair warning of the proscribed conduct,” and it posed no conflict with RCW 16.08 because the Rabon ruling (see below) allows local ordinances that impose broader restrictions than those in state law.

Morawek v. City of Bonney Lake (2014) — Morawek’s dog killed a cat, but no one saw how the animals started fighting. The city’s regulation defined a “dangerous dog” as any that “has killed a domestic animal without provocation...” The city hearing examiner declared the dog dangerous and the county superior court affirmed, but the court of appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence that Morawek's dog killed the cat “without provocation.” 

Gorman v. Pierce County (2013) — Gorman sued the county after suffering injuries in a dog attack. The county argued it was immune from Gorman’s lawsuit under the public duty doctrine, which provides the government with immunity from many lawsuits but also contains a “failure to enforce” exception that removes immunity when the government fails to enforce its own ordinances. Despite getting several attack complaints about the dog leading up to the attack on Gorman, the county still failed to classify the dog as dangerous under its code. The court ruled that since the county failed to enforce its dangerous dog ordinance, it had no immunity from Gorman’s lawsuit under the public duty doctrine.

Downey v. Pierce County (2011) — A small dog had to be euthanized after being attacked by another dog, and an investigation found Downey's dog was responsible. Accordingly, the county declared Downey's dog dangerous. Downey challenged the declaration under the county’s code, which required her to pay hearing fees and did not specify the county’s burden of proof to sustain its dangerousness declaration at a hearing. Downey appealed after losing hearings at the county level. The appeals court ruled that the county’s fee requirement to obtain hearings deprived Downey of due process, and that the burden of proof in the county code was inadequate. Relying in part on the Mansour decision, the court ruled the county needed to prove its case by a preponderance of evidence.

Mansour v. King County (2006) — Mansour’s dog got out of its backyard and attacked a neighbor’s cat, which had to be euthanized. County animal control issued a removal order declaring Mansour's dog to be a “vicious animal” running at large. The order required Mansour's dog be microchipped and removed from the county. On administrative appeal, the county denied Mansour’s requests for production of documents and witness subpoena. The county board of appeals and superior court both upheld the removal order; but the court of appeals reversed on three grounds. First, the county rules failed to require county animal control to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence, which the court held was the minimum required proof standard. Second, due process required that Mansour be able to subpoena witnesses and records. And third, the removal order failed to properly notify Mansour of the code provision that he violated.

Rabon v. City of Seattle (1998) — The court found that Seattle's animal control ordinances, which grant a municipal official the discretion to order the destruction of any animal determined by a court to be a "vicious" animal, are not preempted by state law. However, it also found that an owner is entitled to a hearing to present reasons why their animal(s) should not be destroyed.

Recommended Resources

• American Kennel Club: Canine Good Citizen Program — Dogs that complete this program can receive an exemption from a breed-specific dangerous dog designation
• International Wolf Center: Wolf-Dog Hybrids — This webpage describes a wolf-hybrid and addressed some myths surrounding hybrids