Skagit County advances draft changes to dangerous‑dog code; public comment period extended to June 27

Skagit County commissioners on June 10 considered proposed amendments to Skagit County Code chapter 7.06 that would streamline how the county identifies potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs and clarify owners' appeal rights.

Jelen Spasov, a civil deputy prosecuting attorney, said the changes were prompted by a sheriff's request to make the process more efficient. "The request was to make the process more efficient by having only the animal control officer make the determination," Spasov said. The proposed language would allow the county (defined to include county employees and officers) to make determinations directly through animal control staff and would remove a separate review step currently performed by the undersheriff.

The draft updates also revise definitions and procedural steps. Key provisions discussed included: an explicit 20‑calendar‑day appeal period to district court after service of a determination form; updated witness and determination forms to guide evidence collection; a 72‑hour impoundment‑notice requirement; a redemption pathway for owners to redeem impounded animals after remedying statutory violations; and a specific treatment for properties keeping 15 or more dogs (if one dog on such a property meets the potentially dangerous or dangerous definition, all dogs on the property would be considered potentially dangerous unless the owner proves which dog was responsible).

Spasov said the drafters also clarified thresholds for poultry: a dog that injures poultry may be treated as potentially dangerous if it bites poultry in multiple incidents, and a dog would meet the dangerous‑dog threshold for poultry if it kills five poultry in a qualifying set of incidents. Emily, the county animal‑control officer, explained operational details and how the changes affect enforcement. Emily clarified limits on enforcement powers: "I cannot legally require somebody to muzzle their animal in a public space unless their dog has been deemed as dangerous," she said.

Public commenters described local incidents. Resident Linda Holly of Mount Vernon said she regularly walks two leashed Cavalier King Charles Spaniels on a public county road and reported repeated encounters with a resident who walks two pit bulls and who she said has difficulty controlling them. Her husband, Steven Sogen, also spoke and asked whether repeated complaints can result in mandated muzzling; county staff reiterated that muzzle requirements in public spaces currently require a dog to be formally deemed dangerous.

Board members asked staff about outreach; commissioners and staff agreed additional public notice and targeted communication (for example to 4‑H or local clubs) would be desirable. The board voted to keep the public comment period open through close of business on June 27 to allow additional input before formal adoption. The motion to leave the record open carried 2–0.

Why it matters: the proposed code changes affect how animal control and the sheriff's office handle repeated livestock predation, attacks on people and other animal incidents, and they adjust the administrative pathway for owners to contest designations. The county emphasized the amendments are intended to improve clarity, speed administrative processes and provide clearer notice to owners and the public.