Skagit County delays final vote on dangerous-dog code changes, leaves public comment open through June 27

Skagit County commissioners on June 10 heard a proposal to revise Skagit County Code Chapter 7.06 governing potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs and voted to keep the public comment period open through June 27 before final action.

The proposed changes, presented by Jalan Spasov, Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, would remove an intermediate review step by the sheriff and allow an animal-control officer or other designated county employee to make determinations that a dog is potentially dangerous or dangerous. Spasov said the revisions also clarify appeal procedures, impoundment notice timing and other administrative processes.

Spasov said the draft increases administrative efficiency and clarifies the county's options for impoundment and redemption. "An owner has 20 calendar days to appeal a determination by the animal control officer," he said, and the updated determination form includes a service certification to document when the 20-day appeal period begins.

Why it matters: County staff said the change would speed determinations and free deputy sheriff resources now used for review. The rewrite also updates forms and definitions to reflect issues the county has encountered enforcing the code.

What the draft would change - Decision authority: The review now may be made by "the county," which the draft defines to include employees such as the animal-control officer. That removes the current mandatory review by the undersheriff. - Appeals: Owners would appeal a determination to district court; the draft specifies a 20-calendar-day filing window and details what must appear on the appeal paperwork. - Impoundment and notice: The draft explicitly requires the county to serve impoundment notice within 72 hours and describes a redemption process for reclaimed dogs. - Multiple-dog properties: For properties keeping 15 or more dogs, the draft shifts the burden to the owner to identify which dog caused a violation; if the owner cannot, the county may deem all dogs on the property potentially dangerous or dangerous. - Poultry threshold: The draft adds a poultry-specific threshold: a dog would be treated as potentially dangerous if it bites poultry in five or more separate incidents, and dangerous if it kills poultry in five or more incidents. The county said this clarifies how poultry are treated versus other livestock. - Updated forms: The county replaced several short witness and declaration forms with a longer combined determination form designed to document facts relied on, specify applicable statutory language, and record service and appeal rights.

Questions and concerns from commissioners and the public Commissioners and members of the public asked for clarification about what counts as a "separate" incident, how owners and neighbors document repeated problems, and what civil remedies are available to livestock owners. Emily (Animal Control Officer) said documentation and witness statements can be used to show prior incidents if the owner of the livestock did not call immediately.

A county resident asked what rights a property owner has when a dog threatens livestock; the animal-control officer said, "If the dog is an immediate threat to you, your animals, or your family, you have the right to do what's necessary to protect you, yourself, and your animals." The hearing also included requests that the county provide outreach explaining the changes to dog clubs, 4-H groups and other dog owners.

Next steps and action taken After discussion, the board voted to keep the public comment period open through June 27 and to consider the ordinance amendment on a future consent agenda. Commissioners agreed to allow staff and communications to run targeted outreach while the comment window remains open. The motion passed by voice vote; the record indicates the motion "carries" but does not list a roll-call tally in the hearing transcript.

Ending note: County attorneys emphasized the changes are intended to make the process clearer for owners, complainants and staff, not to alter enforcement options beyond those described in the draft code.