Wash. Rev. Code » Title 77 · Chapter 77.36
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 77.36.030 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Subject to limitations and conditions established by the commission, the owner, the owner's immediate family member, the owner's documented employee, or a tenant of real property may trap, consistent with RCW 77.15.194, or kill wildlife that is threatening human safety or causing property damage on that property, without the licenses required under RCW 77.32.010 or authorization from the director under RCW 77.12.240.
(2) The commission shall establish the limitations and conditions of this section by rule. The rules must include:
(a) Appropriate protection for threatened or endangered species;
(b) Instances when verbal or written permission is required to kill wildlife;
(c) Species that may be killed under this section; and
(d) Requirements for the disposal of wildlife trapped or killed under this section.
(3) In establishing the limitations and conditions of this section, the commission shall take into consideration the recommendations of the Washington state wolf conservation and management plan.
[ 2009 c 333 s 61; 1996 c 54 s 4.]

Notes:

Effective date—Application—2009 c 333 ss 53-66: See notes following RCW 77.36.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2003–2008 · leading case: Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 71 P.3d 644 (Wash. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 71 P.3d 644 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 9× “Citizens contend that 1-713 is not a complete act because the effect of the initiative is not readily ascertainable as it alters the rights of landowners, conferred by RCW 77.36.030, to trap or kill wildlife causing damage without reference to that statute.”
State v. Vander Houwen, 177 P.3d 93 (Wash. 2008). “RCW 77.36.030 allows a property owner to obtain oral permission from the Department to kill protected wildlife in an emergency situation.”
State v. Vander Houwen, 163 Wash. 2d 25 (Wash. 2008). “RCW 77.36.030 allows a property owner to obtain oral permission from the Department to kill protected wildlife in an emergency situation.”
Citizens for Resp. Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 71 P.3d 644 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 9× “Citizens contend that I-713 is not a complete act because the effect of the initiative is not readily ascertainable as it alters the rights of landowners, conferred by RCW 77.36.030, to trap or kill wildlife causing damage without reference to that statute.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 77.36.030(1) — 2 cases
Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 71 P.3d 644 (Wash. 2003). “Citizens contend that 1-713 is not a complete act because the effect of the initiative is not readily ascertainable as it alters the rights of landowners, conferred by RCW 77.36.030, to trap or kill wildlife causing damage without reference to that statute.”
Citizens for Resp. Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 71 P.3d 644 (Wash. 2003). “Citizens contend that I-713 is not a complete act because the effect of the initiative is not readily ascertainable as it alters the rights of landowners, conferred by RCW 77.36.030, to trap or kill wildlife causing damage without reference to that statute.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 77.36.030(1)(c) — 1 case
Citizens for Resp. Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 71 P.3d 644 (Wash. 2003). “Citizens contend that I-713 is not a complete act because the effect of the initiative is not readily ascertainable as it alters the rights of landowners, conferred by RCW 77.36.030, to trap or kill wildlife causing damage without reference to that statute.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 77.36.030(l)(c) — 1 case
Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 71 P.3d 644 (Wash. 2003). “Citizens contend that 1-713 is not a complete act because the effect of the initiative is not readily ascertainable as it alters the rights of landowners, conferred by RCW 77.36.030, to trap or kill wildlife causing damage without reference to that statute.”
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.