Preventing breed-based dog regulations.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 5094 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 5094.
You're tracking SB 5094
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 5094 — Preventing breed-based dog regulations.
Last action — Senate Rules "X" file.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed House
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
1 added · 1 removedPlain-language change summary
The updated version of Senate Bill 5094 has added specific language that prevents local jurisdictions from enacting breed-based regulations on dogs. Instead of focusing on a dog's breed, the legislation emphasizes evaluating dog behavior to determine if a dog is dangerous. This change is significant because it aims to reduce unfair restrictions on responsible dog owners and encourage more effective, behavior-based approaches to dog management that could enhance public safety.
S-1036.3SUBSTITUTES-0166.1SENATE SENATE BILL 5094State of Washington65th Legislature2017 Regular SessionBy Senate Local Government (originally sponsored by Senators Palumbo, Fain, and Wilson)READWilsonRead FIRSTfirst TIMEtime 02/17/17.AN01/12/17. ACT Relating to preventing breed-based dog regulations;
amendingReferred RCWto 16.08.080Committee andon 16.08.100;Local Government.AN ACT Relating to preventing breed-based dog regulations;
addingamending aRCW new16.08.070, section16.08.080, to16.08.090, chapterand 16.0816.08.100; RCW;
and creating a new section;section.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) A number of local jurisdictions have enacted ordinances prohibiting or placing additional restrictions on specific breeds of dogs.
and providing an effective date.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) A number of local jurisdictions have enacted ordinances prohibiting or placing additional restrictions on specific breeds of dogs.
The legislature intends to redirect the focus away from particular breeds and to instead encourage local jurisdictions to employ more effective and data-driven prevention models to control dangerous dogs and enhance public safety.Sec. 2. RCW 16.08.08016.08.070 and 2002 c 244 s 21 are each amended to read as follows:(1)follows:((Unless Anythe citycontext orclearly countyrequires thatotherwise,)) hasThe adefinitions notificationin andthis appealsection procedureapply withthroughout regardRCW to16.08.070 determiningthrough a16.08.100 dogunless withinthe itscontext jurisdictionclearly torequires beotherwise.(1) "Potentially dangerous maydog" continuemeans any dog, without regard to utilizethe orbreed amendof itsthe procedure.dog, that when unprovoked:
(a) Inflicts bites on a human or a domestic animal either on public or private property, or (b) chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, or any dog, without regard to the breed of the dog, with a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury, or to cause injury or otherwise to threaten the safety of humans or domestic animals.(2) "Dangerous dog" means any dog, without regard to the breed of the dog, that (a) inflicts severe injury on a human being without provocation on public or private property, (b) kills a domestic animal without provocation while the dog is off the owner's property, or (c) has been previously found to be potentially dangerous because of injury inflicted on a human, the owner having received notice of such and the dog again aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans.(3) "Severe injury" means any physical injury that results in broken bones or disfiguring lacerations requiring multiple sutures or cosmetic surgery.(4) "Proper enclosure of a dangerous dog" means, while on the owner's property, a dangerous dog shall be securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure, suitable to prevent the entry of young children and designed to prevent the animal from escaping.
Such pen or structure shall have secure sides and a secure top, and shall also provide protection from the elements for the dog.(5) "Animal control authority" means an entity acting alone or in concert with other local governmental units for enforcement of the animal control laws of the city, county, and state and the shelter and welfare of animals.(6) "Animal control officer" means any individual employed, contracted with, or appointed by the animal control authority for the purpose of aiding in the enforcement of this chapter or any other law or ordinance relating to the licensure of animals, control of animals, or seizure and impoundment of animals, and includes any state or local law enforcement officer or other employee whose duties in whole or in part include assignments that involve the seizure and impoundment of any animal.(7) "Owner" means any person, firm, corporation, organization, or department possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or having control or custody of an animal.Sec. 3. RCW 16.08.080 and 2002 c 244 s 2 are each amended to read as follows:(1) Any city or county that has a notification and appeal procedure with regard to determining a dog within its jurisdiction to be dangerous may continue to utilize or amend its procedure.
or(c) A policy of liability insurance, such as homeowner's insurance, issued by an insurer qualified under Title 48 RCW in the amount of at least two hundred fifty thousand dollars, insuring the owner for any personal injuries inflicted by the dangerous dog.(7)(a)(i) If an owner has the dangerous dog in an incorporated area that is serviced by both a city and a county animal control authority, the owner shall obtain a certificate of registration from the city authority;(ii) If an owner has the dangerous dog in an incorporated or unincorporated area served only by a county animal control authority, the owner shall obtain a certificate of registration from the county authority;(iii) If an owner has the dangerous dog in an incorporated or unincorporated area that is not served by an animal control authority, the owner shall obtain a certificate of registration from the office of the local sheriff.(b) This subsection does not apply if a city or county does not allow dangerous dogs within its jurisdiction.(8) Cities and counties may charge an annual fee, in addition to regular dog licensing fees, to register dangerous dogs.(9) Except as provided in sectionRCW 416.08.090(4), of this act, nothing in this section limits a local authority in placing additional restrictions upon owners of dangerous dogs.
This section does not require a local authority to allow a dangerous dog within its jurisdiction.Sec. 3. RCWjurisdiction.Sec. 4. RCW 16.08.10016.08.090 and 20021987 c 24494 s 3 are each amended to read as follows:(1) AnyIt is unlawful for an owner of a dangerous dog shallto permit the dog to be immediatelyoutside confiscatedthe proper enclosure unless the dog is muzzled and restrained by ana animalsubstantial controlchain authorityor ifleash the:and under physical restraint of a responsible person.
The muzzle shall be made in a manner that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration but shall prevent it from biting any person or animal.(2) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, potentially dangerous dogs shall be regulated only by local, municipal, and county ordinances.
Nothing in this section limits restrictions local jurisdictions may place on owners of potentially dangerous dogs.(3) Dogs shall not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person who, at the time, was committing a ((wilful)) willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the owner of the dog, or was tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or has, in the past, been observed or reported to have tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog or was committing or attempting to commit a crime.(4) The breed of dog may not be considered when declaring a dog dangerous or potentially dangerous.
A local jurisdiction may not prohibit possession of a particular breed of dog or declare a breed of dog to be dangerous or potentially dangerous.Sec. 5. RCW 16.08.100 and 2002 c 244 s 3 are each amended to read as follows:(1) Any dangerous dog shall be immediately confiscated by an animal control authority if the:
In addition, the dog shall be immediately confiscated by an animal control authority, quarantined, and upon conviction of the owner destroyed in an expeditious and humane manner.(4) Any person entering a dog in a dog fight is guilty of a class C felony punishable in accordance with RCW 9A.20.021.NEW9A.20.021.--- SECTION. Sec. 4. AEND new--- section is added to chapter 16.08 RCW to read as follows:(1) A city or county may not prohibit the possession of a dog based upon its breed, impose requirements specific to possession of a dog based upon its breed, or declare a dog dangerous or potentially dangerous based upon its breed unless all of the following conditions are met:(a) The city or county has established and maintains a reasonable process for exempting any dog from breed-based regulations or a breed ban if the dog passes the American kennel club canine good citizen test or a reasonably equivalent canine behavioral test as determined by the city or county;(b) Dogs that pass the American kennel club canine good citizen test or a reasonably equivalent canine behavioral test are exempt from breed-based regulations for a period of at least two years;(c) Dogs that pass the American kennel club canine good citizen test or a reasonably equivalent canine behavioral test are given the opportunity to retest to maintain their exemption from breed-based regulations;
and(d) Dogs that fail the American kennel club canine good citizen test or a reasonably equivalent canine behavioral test are given the opportunity to retest within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the city or county.(2) This section does not apply to the act of documenting either a dog's breed or its physical appearance, or both, solely for identification purposes when declaring a dog dangerous or potentially dangerous.(3) For the purpose of this section, "dog" means a domesticated member of the family canidae, specifically species Canus lupus familiaris, and excludes nondomesticated members of the family canidae and any hybrids thereof, including but not limited to wolves, coyotes, wolf-dog hybrids, and coyote-dog hybrids.NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. This act takes effect January 1, 2018.--- END ---
View plain text versions (2)
- Bill View text Current html
- Substitute Substitute Bill html
Action History
-
Senate Rules "X" file.
-
Senate Rules "X" file.
-
Placed on second reading by Rules Committee.
-
Placed on second reading by Rules Committee.
-
Moved to Rules White Sheet.
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
Moved to Rules White Sheet.
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
Senate Rules "X" file.
-
Senate Rules "X" file.
-
Placed on second reading by Rules Committee.
-
Placed on second reading by Rules Committee.
-
Passed to Rules Committee for second reading.
-
Passed to Rules Committee for second reading.
-
Minority; without recommendation.
-
LGOV - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass.
-
Minority; without recommendation.
-
LGOV - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass.
-
First reading, referred to Local Government.
Sponsors
- Wilson · Cosponsor
- Fain · Cosponsor
- Palumbo · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 2 co-sponsors · 148 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Palumbo
Co-sponsors (2)
- Wilson
- Fain
Not signed on (148)
148 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 148 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- Who sponsors SB 5094?
- SB 5094 is sponsored by Wilson, Fain, and Palumbo.
- What is the current status of SB 5094?
- This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SB 5094?
- Track SB 5094 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 5094
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 5094
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →