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

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

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.

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.

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

This Pennsylvania statute provides that the owners or operators of licensed dog training areas shall not be subject to any action for nuisance, and no court in this Commonwealth shall enjoin the use or operation of training areas on the basis of noise or noise pollution, provided that the owners were and remain in compliance with any applicable noise control laws or ordinances at the time the permit for establishment of the training areas was authorized.

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 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.

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 any city, county or town which supports an animal shelter may by ordinance provide that no person who acquires an animal from a shelter shall be able to sell such animal within a period of six months from the time the animal is acquired from the shelter. Violation of such an ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor.

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 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 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.