1) Deprivation of such type of property has precedent in the US as on its own it is capable of seriously injuring humans. It's not a gun or a car which require humans in order to cause injury. This is why there are federal and state laws restricting the importation of such animals.
2) Keeping a wild animal
required a permit and appropriate confining measures to ensure the safety of the general public.
3) None of which were obtained/enforced by either the owners or the state.
This leaves us with a few options:
1) You're being dishonest by posting Washington State wild animal laws which have NOTHING to do with this case
2) You're being ignorant of how laws in the US work.
3) You believe that requiring a permit for living beings is a deprivation of said property which in and of itself is laughable as deprivation of living property (humans, animals, plants etc) has precedent in this country - ESPECIALLY - when there is a risk of injury to either the property, the general public or the owners.
It hasn't been blocked on carry overs from British law...
Arizona, Kansas sue federal government to enforce voter registration laws | TheHill