Why there's no statute here
Alaska has never enacted a dog-bite-specific statute. Instead, liability runs on the common-law one-bite rule (also called scienter): the dog owner is liable only if the victim can show the owner knew or should have known the dog had dangerous propensities. The Alaska Supreme Court applied this standard in Spraker, 145 P.3d 494 (Alaska 2006).
A second path doesn't require proving the owner's knowledge at all: if the owner violated a local leash law or animal-control ordinance, Alaska recognizes negligence per se — an unexcused statutory violation counts as negligence itself, a doctrine Alaska courts have specifically applied in dog attack cases.
Alaska's pure comparative negligence rule (AS 09.17.060) then reduces, but never eliminates, your recovery for your own share of fault — a meaningfully different outcome from a contributory-negligence state, where any fault at all can bar the claim completely.