This bill adds a new section to chapter 1.20 RCW creating a state symbol by designating the bluntnose sixgill shark (Hexanchus griseus) as the official shark of the state of Washington. The bill includes legislative findings describing the species (also called the cow shark, having six gill slits and capable of reaching over 15 feet), notes its association with Washington waters, and names the city of Des Moines as the "sixgill capital of the world." The findings also reference residents, researchers, and divers who observe sixgill sharks in Washington's inland marine waters. Legally, the change is the addition of a new statutory section — a symbolic designation — to chapter 1.20 RCW. It is a new law that amends the chapter by adding a provision; it does not create a new crime, change penalties, or set new procedures, and the text contains no implementation, enforcement, funding, or administrative provisions. The document shows initial legislative action: read first time in the House on 01/13/26 and referred to the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations as part of the 69th Legislature, 2026 Regular Session. The bill text does not specify an effective date, an exact RCW subsection number for the new section, or any subsequent committee action, passage, or enactment.

If enacted, the law would mainly give the bluntnose sixgill shark an official, symbolic status as Washington’s state shark and include findings that highlight its presence in local waters and the city of Des Moines as a noted location for sightings. The practical effects are limited: state publications and promotional materials could be updated to reflect the designation, and Des Moines and local tourism or education groups might use the designation for marketing or outreach, while researchers, divers, and residents could see increased public recognition of the shark. The change would not create new regulatory duties, funding, enforcement actions, or specified administrative programs in the text provided, so any costs or tasks for agencies would likely be minimal and limited to routine updates. Important details are missing about an effective date, exact RCW placement, and any implementation steps, so the timing and specific administrative follow-up remain unclear.