Wash. Rev. Code » Title 16 · Chapter 16.52
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 16.52.095 (2025)

Certain veterinary procedures—Misdemeanor

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, it is a misdemeanor:
(a) For any person to cut off more than one-half of the ear or ears of any domestic animal such as an ox, cow, bull, calf, sheep, goat, or hog; or
(b) For any person to:
(i) Devocalize a dog;
(ii) Crop or cut off any part of the ear of a dog; or
(iii) Crop or cut off any part of the tail of a dog that is seven days old or older, or has opened its eyes, whichever occurs sooner.
(2) This section does not apply if the person performing the procedure is a licensed veterinarian utilizing accepted veterinary surgical protocols that may include local anesthesia, general anesthesia, or perioperative pain management.
[ 2020 c 158 s 4; 1994 c 261 s 7; Code 1881 s 840; 1871 p 103 s 1; RRS s 3206. Formerly RCW 16.52.090, part.]

Notes:

Finding—Intent—1994 c 261: See note following RCW 16.52.011.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2010–2010 · leading case: Nw. Animal Rights Network v. State, 158 Wash. App. 237 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nw. Animal Rights Network v. State, 158 Wash. App. 237 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “See RCW 16.52.095, .180, .185, .205(6). In other words, the challenged provisions of the statute establish that persons engaging in particular activities and practices are not committing criminal animal cruelty.”
Nw. Animal Rights Network v. State, 242 P.3d 891 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “See RCW 16.52.095, .180,.185, .205(6). In other words, the challenged provisions of the statute establish that persons engaging in particular activities and practices are not committing criminal animal cruelty.”
Nw. Animal Rights Network v. State, 242 P.3d 891 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “See RCW 16.52.095, .180,.185, .205(6). In other words, the challenged provisions of the statute establish that persons engaging in particular activities and practices are not committing criminal animal cruelty.”
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.