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.