This Alaska statute provides that any dog that habitually annoys any wild deer, reindeer, sheep, cattle, horse, or other animal or bird either domestic or wild, or evinces a disposition which makes it likely that it will without provocation bite an animal or fowl, may be lawfully killed by any person when it is found at large. The owner or keeper of the dog, if known or reasonably identifiable, shall be notified and given reasonable opportunity to restrain the dog before it is lawful to kill it.

This Alaska statute enables a village council the power to destroy loose dogs in the village and otherwise control dogs to the extent authorized first class cities.  The council may impose and enforce the provisions of a dog control ordinance in the total area within 20 miles of the village.

These Alabama statutes outline the state's dog bite law.  The law first provides that, when any person owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any kind and, as a result of his or her careless management or allowing the dog to go at liberty, and another person, without fault is injured, such owner shall be liable in damages for such injury.  If any dog shall, without provocation, bite or injure any person who is at the time at a place where he or she has a legal right to be, the owner of such dog shall be liable in damages to the person so bitten or injured.  This apparent strict liability has a mitigation provision that states that the owner of such dog shall be entitled to plead and prove in mitigation of damages that he had no knowledge of any circumstances indicating such dog to be or to have been vicious or dangerous.  If an owner, however, is aware that his or her dog is rabid at the time of the bite, he or she shall be liable for twice the damages sustained.

These ordinances comprise the municipalities of Mobile and Muscle Shoals, Alabama's animal control provisions.

This Arkansas statute provides that municipal corporations have the power to prevent the running at large of dogs and the injuries and annoyances associated with them.  Further, this statute allows municipalities to authorize the destruction or impoundment of dogs if found in violation of ordinance.  However, prior  to destroying the dog, the municipality shall give the dog's owner at least five (5) days' notice of the date of the proposed destruction of the dog by certified mail if the dog carries the owner's address.

This Arizona statute exempts cities or towns from the provisions of this article if they impose a license fee and vaccination on dogs by ordinance, provided that such ordinance is equal to or more stringent than the provisions of this article.  Further, the provisions of this article shall not apply to counties which regulate the running at large of dogs in the unincorporated areas of the county by ordinance provided that such ordinance is equal to or more stringent than the provisions of this article.

This Arizona statute provides that a person is lawfully on a dog owner's property when he or she is there as an invitee or guest, or when in the performance of a duty imposed upon him by law of the state or United States, or by ordinances of a municipality in which such property is located.

This California statute provides great deference to local municipalities by providing that regulations governing local municipalities shall not infringe upon the police powers of those local units to regulate dogs.  Specifically, it states that this chapter shall not prevent the local authorities in any city, county, or city and county, by ordinance and within the exercise of the police power of the city, county, or city and county from imposing reasonable additional requirements necessary to regulate and control protection dogs according to their local needs and not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter.

This California statute provides that, in rabies areas, every owner of dogs older than four months shall get a new dog license at least once every two years as provided by ordinance of the responsible city, city and county, or county.  Also, every dog owner shall, at intervals of time not more often than once a year, vaccinate his or her dog against rabies.  Any dog in violation of this chapter and any additional provisions that may be prescribed by any local governing body shall be impounded, as provided by local ordinance.

This 2005 Colorado law makes a dog owner strictly liable for dog bites only if the victim of the bite suffers serious bodily injury or death from being bitten by a dog while lawfully on public or private property regardless of the viciousness or dangerous propensities of the dog or the dog owner's knowledge or lack of knowledge of the dog's viciousness or dangerous propensities.  Further, the victim is entitled to recover only economic damages (as opposed to noneconomic damages like pain and suffering, inconvenience, etc.)  in a civil suit against the dog owner.   Also, the statute provides that an owner is not liable where the victim is unlawfully on public or private property; where the victim is on the owner's property and the the property is clearly and conspicuously marked with one or more posted signs stating "no trespassing" or "beware of dog"; where the victim has clearly provoked the dog; where the victim is a veterinary health care worker, dog groomer, humane agency staff person, professional dog handler, trainer, or dog show judge acting in the performance of his or her respective duties; or where the dog is working as a hunting dog, herding dog, farm or ranch dog, or predator control dog on the property of or under the control of the dog's owner.

These Connecticut statutes comprise the state's dog law.  Among the provisions include licensing, kennel, and rabies regulations.  With regard to damage by dogs, the law provides a form of strict liability that states if any dog does any damage to either the body or property of any person, the owner or keeper shall be liable for such damage, except when such damage has been occasioned to the body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog.  The law also contains a unique "dogs on highway" provision that provides that any person owning or having the custody of any dog which habitually goes out on any highway and growls, bites, or snaps at, or otherwise annoys, any person or domestic animal lawfully using such highway or chases or interferes with any motor vehicle so using such highway, shall be fined or imprisoned.  Further, among the nuisance provisions, the law states that no person shall own or harbor a dog which is a nuisance by reason of vicious disposition or excessive barking or other disturbance.  Finally, Connecticut has an anti-ear cropping measures that prohibits cropping by anyone who is not a registered veterinary surgeon, and who performs the operation when the dog is under an anesthetic.

These District of Columbia statutes make up the dog laws for the District.  Included among the provisions are definitions, animal control and at large provisions, and vaccinations/licensing regulations.  With regard to dangerous dogs, the term "dangerous animal" means an animal that because of specific training or demonstrated behavior threatens the health or safety of the public.  The Mayor may impound any animal at large or any dangerous animal.  If a dog injures a person while at large, lack of knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity standing alone shall not absolve the owner from a finding of negligence.

This Delaware statutes provides that nothing shall prevent a local municipality from enacting measures or a program for the control of dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs.  

This Iowas statute makes it lawful for any person to kill a dog, wearing a collar with a rabies vaccination tag attached, when the dog is caught in the act of worrying, chasing, maiming, or killing any domestic animal or fowl, or when such dog is attacking or attempting to bite a person.

This Iowa statute states that the county board shall provide for the seizure, impoundment, and disposition of dogs in accordance with chapter 351.

This Iowa statute provides that local health and law enforcement officials shall enforce state provisions relating to vaccination and impoundment of dogs.  It further states that such public officials shall not be responsible for any accident or disease of a dog resulting from the enforcement of the provisions of the sections.

This Indiana statute provides that the chapter related to dog bite law does not limit the power of an agency of the state or a political subdivision to adopt a rule or an ordinance that does not conflict with this chapter.

These Kentucky statutes comprise the state's Dog Laws, which were amended significantly in 2005.  Included are all vaccination, licensing, animal control provisions, and the relevant dog bite statutes.  Under Section 258.235, any person may kill or seize any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing or wounding any livestock, or wounding or killing poultry, or attacking human beings, whether or not such dog bears the license tag required by the provisions of this chapter. There shall be no liability on such person in damages or otherwise for killing, injuring from an attempt to kill, or for seizing the dog.  That same section also comprises the state's new strict liability law for dog bites.  Under Sec. 235(4), any owner whose dog is found to have caused damage to a person, livestock, or other property shall be responsible for that damage.

This Louisiana 2001 proposed law would have provided for the crime of illegally training dogs; however, it died in committee.  It would have also defined "illegally train" to mean the training of a dog to attack or kill a human being, another dog, or any other animal species.  The proposed law would have created exceptions for any dog used by law enforcement officials, a guard dog used to defend livestock raised for commercial or subsistence purposes, or a guard dog used to defend any school, place of business, or personal residence.   Violation of the proposed law would have incurred a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment of not more than six months, or both.

This Massachusetts statute provides that a town may make additional ordinances or by-laws relative to the licensing and restraining of dogs, and may affix penalties of not more than fifty dollars for a breach thereof.

This Maine statutory sections outlines the state's dangerous dog laws.  It first provides that any person may lawfully kill a dog if necessary to protect that person, another person or a domesticated animal during the course of a sudden, unprovoked assault.  A person who owns or keeps a dangerous dog commits a civil violation for which the court shall adjudge a fine of not less than $250 and not more than $1,000.  The dog may be ordered to be muzzled, or euthanized if it has killed, maimed or inflicted serious bodily injury upon a person or has a history of a prior assault.  Notably, if a dog whose owner refuses or neglects to comply with the order wounds any person by a sudden assault or wounds or kills any domestic animal, the owner shall pay the person injured treble damages and costs to be recovered by a civil action.  The statute sets out the specific procedure for declaring a dog dangerous and the statutory definition of dangerous is also provided by reference to a companion statute.

Under this Michigan statute, a local unit is empowered to adopt an ordinance governing wolf-dog crosses that is more restrictive than this act, provided it fulfills the requirements of this act in addition to any other requirements governing a wolf-dog cross under state and federal law.

The regulation of dogs and cats in Michigan implicates three major issues: licensing and registration of dogs; the regulation of animal control facilities and pet shops; and the ever-present concern of dog bites.  The primary statutory vehicle that regulates the licensing requirements for dogs is the The Dog Law of 1919. Under the dog law, it is unlawful for any person to own a dog six months or older unless the dog is licensed. MCL § 287.262. It is also unlawful for a person to own a dog six months or older that does not wear a collar and tag at all times, except when engaged in hunting activities accompanied by his or her owner. MCL § 287.262. A female dog that is in heat may not go beyond her owner’s premises unless properly held on a leash under this section.

This Michigan statute provides that a city incorporated under the provisions of this act has, and the council may pass ordinances relating to, the following general powers:  To provide for the issuing of licenses to the owners and keepers of dogs and to require the owners and keepers of dogs to pay for and obtain such licenses; and to regulate and prevent the running at large of dogs, to require dogs to be muzzled, and to authorize the killing of dogs running at large or not licensed in violation of an ordinance of the city.

These ordinances comprise the cities of Kansas City and Springfield's animal control provisions.

This Missouri statute provides that a local board of aldermen may tax, regulate and restrain and prohibit the running at large of dogs, and provide for their destruction when at large contrary to ordinance, and impose penalties on the owners or keepers thereof.

This North Dakota statute provides that the city council in a city operating under the council form of government and the board of city commissioners in a city operating under the commission system of government, in addition to the powers possessed by all municipalities, shall have power to license dogs and to regulate the keeping of dogs including authorization for their disposition or destruction in order to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public.

This Nebraska statute provides that nothing in the state dangerous dog laws (sections 54-617 to 54-623) shall be construed to restrict or prohibit any governing board of any county, city, or village from establishing and enforcing laws or ordinances at least as stringent as the provisions of sections 54-617 to 54-623.

This New Jersey statute provides that the owner of any dog that bites a person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, shall be liable for such damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.

This New Jersey statute provides that a person may humanely destroy a dog in self defense, or which is found chasing, worrying, wounding or destroying any sheep, lamb, poultry or domestic animal.

This New Jersey statute provides that every municipality may, by ordinance, fix the sum to be paid annually for a potentially dangerous dog license and each renewal thereof, which sum shall not be less than $150 nor more than $700. In the absence of any local ordinance, the fee for all potentially dangerous dog licenses shall be $150.

Dogs, domestic animals and birds are considered personal property in Nevada.

This Oklahoma statute provides that the municipal governing body may regulate or prohibit animals from running at large.  The governing body may also regulate and provide for taxing the owners and harborers of dogs, and authorize the killing of dogs which are found at large in violation of any ordinance regulating the same.

These ordinances comprise the cities of Oklahoma City and Sallisaw, Oklahoma's animal control provisions.

This Oregon statute provides enhanced civil penalties (fines) for owners of dogs previously convicted of chasing, injuring, or killing livestock.  The owners must have been previously assessed a penalty to receive the enhanced fine.

This briefly worded Pennsylvania statute presumably gives municipalities the authority "[t]o regulate and provide for taxing the owners and harborers of dogs, and to destroy dogs found at large contrary to any ordinance."

This Puerto Rico statute confers authority to the municipal councils of Puerto Rico to regulate by ordinance, the running at large of domestic animals, destruction and impounding of such animals, as well as the regulation of muzzling and licensing of dogs.  In addition, the councils are given authority to enact all needful ordinances to protect the public health as affected by the running at large of domestic animals.

This Puerto Rico statute provides that each municipality has the general power to order, regulate and resolve whatever is necessary and convenient to attend to its local needs and for its greater prosperity and development.  Among these powers is the power to regulate whatever concerns stray domestic animals, including euthanasia and disposal in interest of the public health, establishing rules and conditions under which they can be rescued by their owners, the muzzling and licensing of dogs, and the adoption and implementation of such precautionary measures that are necessary or convenient to protect the public health as it may be affected by domestic stray animals.

This Rhode Island statute provides that towns and cities may adopt ordinances or regulations concerning the use of money received for dog licenses. 

This Rhode Island bill created the term "guardian" to mean a person who possesses, has title to or an interest in, harbors or has control, custody or possession of an animal and who is responsible for an animal's safety and well-being.  In adopting this term, Rhode Island became the first state to recognize that an individual is the guardian of a companion animal (not merely owner).

This South Dakota statute provides that the board of county commissioners of each of the counties shall have the power to regulate, restrain or prohibit the running at large of dogs and to impose a license or tax on all dogs not licensed or taxed under municipal ordinance, owned or kept by any person within the county.

These Tennessee statutes comprise the state's dog laws.  Among the provisions include licensing requirements for companion animal dealers, laws concerning damage done by dogs, and the Tennessee Spay/Neuter Law.

This Texas statute provides that a dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by any person witnessing the attack or the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack.  A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this section is not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.

Chapter 823 enumerates the standards by which animal shelters shall comply.  It sets forth confinement requirements, permissible forms of euthanasia, and personnel requirements. 

This Utah statute provides that every person owning or keeping a dog shall be liable in damages for injury committed by such dog, and it shall not be necessary in any action brought therefor to allege or prove that such dog was of a vicious or mischievous disposition or that the owner or keeper thereof knew that it was vicious or mischievous.  This does not apply to dogs used by law enforcement officials.

This Utah statute, under the chapter relating the general powers of all cities, provides that cities may license, tax, regulate or prohibit the keeping of dogs, and authorize the destruction, sale or other disposal of the same when at large contrary to ordinance.

This Virginia statute provides that Fairfax County may enact an ordinance that prohibits persons from training dogs on residential property to attack.

This Vermont statute provides that, for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, welfare and convenience, a town, city or incorporated village shall have the power to regulate the keeping of dogs, and to provide for their leashing, muzzling or restraint.

This Washington statute outlines the state's dangerous dog laws.  Under the law, the owner or keeper of any dog shall be liable to the owner of any animal killed or injured by such dog for the amount of damages sustained in a civil action.  Further, there is strict liability for the owner of any dog that bites any person while in a public place or lawfully on a private place including the property of the owner of such dog, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.  However, proof of provocation of the attack by the injured person shall be a complete defense to an action for damages. 

This Washington statute provides that the council of said town shall have power to pass ordinances not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of this state, or of the United States.  Specifically, the council may regulate, restrain, or prohibit the running at large of any and all domestic animals within the city limits, or any part or parts thereof, and to regulate the keeping of such animals within any part of the city; to establish, maintain and regulate a common pound for estrays, and to appoint a poundkeeper, who shall be paid out of the fines and fees imposed on, and collected from, the owners of any impounded stock.

This Wisconsin statue provides the necessary elements for an owner needs to retrieve his or her impounded dog.  Included are reasonable proof of ownership, licensure if required by statute or ordinance, proof of vaccination as required by ordinance, and payment of charges.  If an animal is not claimed, the statute outlines several dispositions, such as adoption, euthanization, and sale of the animal at public auction, including sale at a licensed animal market. 

This Wisconsin statute provides a schedule for destruction of obsolete town records, which includes dog licenses after three years.

This Wisconsin statute provides that a local board may enact ordinances regulating the keeping, apprehension, impounding and destruction of dogs outside the corporate limits of any city or village, but such ordinances shall not conflict with ss. 174.01 and 174.042, and such ordinances may not apply in any town that has enacted an ordinance under s. 60.23(30).

This Wyoming statute provides that the governing bodies of all cities and towns may regulate or prohibit the running at large within the city limits of any animals, impose a license fee for the keeping or harboring of dogs and establish and provide for the operation of a pound.  They may also abate nuisances (dogs at large are defined as such), establish quarantines, and enact other ordinances for the general health, safety, and welfare of the community.

This Wyoming statute provides that a board of county commissioners may declare the running at large of any specified animals in unincorporated areas within the county limits a public nuisance.  Dogs or other animals, whose ownership cannot be determined, may be destroyed.  A dog injuring or killing livestock may be killed by the owner of the livestock or his agent or any peace officer.  However, any dog attacking any person in a vicious manner may be impounded by the county sheriff or animal control officer and held in quarantine for at least fifteen (15) days and not more than twenty (20) days after the attack to determine whether the dog has any disease which may be communicated to humans.  A board of county commissioners may enact regulations relative to dogs running at large, vicious dogs, dogs running wild game or livestock or acts by other animals which shall carry out the purposes of this section.  The county may also establish a county license fee and an animal control program/facility.