Wash. Rev. Code » Title 16 · Chapter 16.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 16.08.020 (2026)

Dogs injuring stock may be killed

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It shall be lawful for any person who shall see any dog or dogs chasing, biting, injuring or killing any sheep, swine or other domestic animal, including poultry, belonging to such person, on any real property owned or leased by, or under the control of, such person, or on any public highway, to kill such dog or dogs, and it shall be the duty of the owner or keeper of any dog or dogs so found chasing, biting or injuring any domestic animal, including poultry, upon being notified of that fact by the owner of such domestic animals or poultry, to thereafter keep such dog or dogs in leash or confined upon the premises of the owner or keeper thereof, and in case any such owner or keeper of a dog or dogs shall fail or neglect to comply with the provisions of this section, it shall be lawful for the owner of such domestic animals or poultry to kill such dog or dogs found running at large.
[ 1929 c 198 s 6; RRS s 3107. Prior: 1919 c 6 s 6; 1917 c 161 s 6; RCS s 3107.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: State Of Washington v. Robert E. Wilson, 450 P.3d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Of Washington v. Robert E. Wilson, 450 P.3d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 35× “We hold that although the trial court did not err in denying Wilson’s motion to dismiss under RCW 16.”
Tory Gomsrud v. Daniel R. Campeau (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 51× “On appeal, the Gomsruds challenge the superior court’s application of RCW 16.08.020, dismissal of their claims, and holding that noneconomic damages are not cognizable for trespass to chattel or conversion.”
Schneider v. Strifert, 888 P.2d 1244 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “010 (an owner or keeper of any dog which kills or injures any animal is strictly liable to the animal’s owner); RCW 16.08.020 (it is lawful to kill a dog roaming at large if its owner or keeper had notice that the dog chased, bit, injured or killed a domestic animal and failed…”
Tyler Bean, V. Mardez Portenier, Dvm (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 20× “Portenier asserted a statutory defense of defense of livestock under RCW 16.08.020, which permits a person to kill a dog if they see the dog “chasing, biting, injuring, or killing” that person’s livestock.”
State v. Schmitt, 102 P.3d 856 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “NOTES [1] Under RCW 16.08.020, one may kill a domestic pet that kills livestock.”
State v. Long, 991 P.2d 102 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “96 (1927); see also RCW 16.08.020. But such cases do not apply to killing dogs chasing State-owned wild animals, as contrasted with domestic farm animals.”
State of Washington v. Savelin Sava Sochirca, 565 P.3d 155 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Emphasizing “except as authorized in law,” Sochirca argues that his actions were lawful because RCW 16.08.020 makes it lawful to kill a dog when it is seen injuring domestic animals, including chickens.”
William G. Pardee, Apps v. Evergreen Shores Beach Club, Resps (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “The post began, “RCW 16.08.020 gives citizens the right to kill dogs under certain circumstances, and places upon owners of such dogs who are notified of their propensities duties to do certain things.”
Clorrissa Estrella v. King Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “030 (owner of dog found killing any domestic animal has duty to kill such dog); RCW 16.08.020 (lawful to kill any dog chasing, biting, injuring, or killing any domestic animal; duty of dog owner to keep confined any dog found chasing, biting, or injuring any domestic animal).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.