Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
04/02/2025 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB70 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 70 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 50 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 70-EMERGENCY MED SVCS; OPERATIONAL CANINES
3:16:29 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 70, "An Act relating to emergency medical
services for operational canines; relating to the powers,
duties, and liability of emergency medical technicians and
mobile intensive care paramedics; relating to the practice of
veterinary medicine; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was CSHB 70(HSS).]
3:17:00 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS opened public testimony on CSHB 70(HSS).
3:17:08 PM
KERRY KIRKPATRICK, representing self, testified in support of
CSHB 70(HSS). She stated that she worked for Southeast Alaska
Dogs Organized for Ground Search (SEADOGS) and noted that often
they are deployed in remote areas of Alaska without immediate
access to veterinary care. She stated that she would like to
see any professionals she works with able to administer
immediate care to her dogs without repercussions.
3:18:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if insurance existed for pets.
MS. KIRKPATRICK noted that she has looked at insurance for her
team but has chosen not to purchase group insurance. She noted
that her dogs are self-insured. She stated that SEADOGS is a
volunteer organization and receives pull-tab money, which goes
towards training and veterinary care.
3:19:44 PM
MELISSA EDWARDS, DVM, Diplomat for the American College of
Veterinary Emergency & Critical Care, testified in support of
CSHB 70(HSS). She stated her credentials, noting that she is a
licensed veterinarian in Alaska, a veterinary emergency and
critical care specialist, and a founding member of the National
Association of Veterinary EMS (NAVEMS). She stated that in
remote environments, it is often the handler or person with
medical knowledge that is the best resource until veterinary
care is available. She asserted that point-of-injury care is
invaluable in trauma cases. She remarked that fully trained
animals are a valuable resource, often worth thousands of
dollars. She acknowledged that there are obvious differences
between dogs and people, but asserted that mammals are mammals,
and the practical nuances could be trained appropriately.
DR. EDWARDS responded to Representative Saddler's questions
regarding insurance, noting that with veterinary insurance,
owners typically front the bill and are later reimbursed based
on their insurance policy. In response to Representative
Saddler's query regarding dogs' abilities to return to work
after injury, explained that that was dependent on the nature of
the injury. She advised that there is both a veterinary
registry and veterinary committee on trauma that looks at
"survivability of injuries." She noted that there is more data
available from the military. She further noted that there is a
paper published recently that concluded that non-veterinary
point-of-injury care provided to operational canines increases
the likelihood of the animal's survival. She stated that many
dogs can return to service, and dogs are exposed to the same
risks as people, including stabbings, shootings, and blast
injuries.
3:24:53 PM
AMANDA TAYLOR, DVM, Emergency & Critical Care Veterinarian, Pet
Emergency Treatment, testified in opposition to CSHB 70(HSS).
She noted that Pet Emergency Treatment is the only true 24-hour
emergency facility in Alaska. She offered her appreciation for
the intent of the proposed legislation but asserted that there
are too many species variations in physiology, anatomy,
pathology, drug metabolism, and disease process to allow CSHB
70(HSS) to be so open-ended. She asserted that CSHB 70(HSS)
should allow for only "basic stabilization and transport" and
should act only in collaboration with veterinarians beyond basic
stabilization and transport. She explained that emergency
medicine is dynamic and asserted that the knowledge, experience,
and education necessary to make rapid critical decisions could
not be taught in a three-day training course and could not "be
looked up in a procedural manual." She echoed other speakers,
stating that operational canines are extremely valuable and
stated that the ultimate goal of everyone is the health of the
patient.
DR. TAYLOR noted that she regularly fields calls in her position
at Pet Emergency Treatment from medical providers that treat
humans, as well as those who treat animals, in the field. She
stated that the [Alaska] Board of Veterinary Examiners worked
hard to allow Pet Emergency Treatment a non-traditional,
veterinary client/patient relationship (VCPR), which allows them
to take responsibility and liability for patients
telephonically. She clarified that the aforementioned was true
only in case of emergencies where a veterinarian was not
immediately available and the patient would be transported "to a
veterinarian as soon as reasonably feasible." She explained
that Alaska is the only state with this sort of protection
because Alaska is so large and geographically challenging. She
concluded by stating that she can talk a provider through what
medicines and dosages to give animal patients through the non-
traditional VCPR, and she asserted this was an amazing practice
already in play through the State Practice Act for veterinarians
[under AS 08.98].
3:28:51 PM
MARY ANN HOLLICK, DVM, representing self, testified in
opposition to CSHB 70(HSS). She stated that she has been
practicing veterinary medicine for over 30 years. She stated
that veterinarians' guiding principle is "first, do no harm"
[primum non nocere]. She asserted that CSHB 70(HSS) has the
potential for inadvertent harm and consequences. She argued
that the claim that should CSHB 70(HSS) not come to pass,
animals would not receive care is not true. She noted that the
Alaska Veterinary Medical Association (AKVMA) opposed CSHB
70(HSS), as well as the Alaska Board of Veterinary Examiners.
She asserted that the proposed legislation was "a solution in
search of a problem" and "the best bill was no bill."
3:30:15 PM
KATRINA BACKUS, DVM, Medical Director, North Pole Veterinary
Hospital, testified in opposition to CSHB 70(HSS). She stated
that she is a member of AKVMA. She explained that North Pole
Veterinary Hospital is a 10-doctor practice that provides a lot
of urgent and emergency care. She asserted that CSHB 70(HSS)
was vague, with no mention of protocols and no discussion with
veterinarians in providing medical care to operational canines.
She shared concerns about liability should a medical operation
or service in the field go awry, echoing prior testimony that
the operational canines are expensive. She shared additional
concerns about lack of protection for emergency medical
technicians (EMTs) and questioned how quality of medicine would
be assured and standardized for operational canines.
3:31:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE questioned what would make the proposed
legislation more acceptable, noting that Dr. Backus had called
CSHB 70(HSS) too "open-ended."
3:32:08 PM
DR. BACKUS explained that in cases of emergency, there are
always standards of operation and typically there are multiple
people present who are experts in their field. She opined that
the proposed legislation would be more palatable if it involved
a board of professionals who are experts in standards of
operation, as well as veterinarians. She observed that there
was no indication of oversight in the proposed legislation.
3:33:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for confirmation that AKVMA opposed
CSHB 70(HSS).
DR. BACKUS explained that she is the legislative liaison for
AKVMA and confirmed that AKVMA opposed CSHB 70(HSS) in its
current form.
3:33:42 PM
KATE ZIMMERMAN, representing self, testified during the hearing
on CSHB 70(HSS). She stated that she is a board-certified
emergency medicine and EMS physician, the state medical director
for Maine Emergency Medical Services, the EMS medical director
for NAVEMS, and serves as the medical director for the Special
Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team of Portland, Maine, and works
closely with operational canines. She noted that she was the
primary author for operational canine protocols for Maine and
stated that Maine has successfully rolled out protocols for
operational canines, which are co-authored with veterinarians in
the state, as well as Dr. Lee Palmer, who is the national
veterinary medical director for NAVEMS.
MS. ZIMMERMAN stated that she had formerly worked as an EMT and
a paramedic and had been practicing emergency medicine on humans
for over 20 years. She stated that EMTs receive rigorous
training and asserted that they can occasionally help bridge the
gap for operational canines. She provided an anecdote about an
operational canine that was shot in the line of duty in a remote
part of Maine, who later died during an operation at a primary
care veterinary clinic. She noted that the canine did not
receive any care prior to arrival at the veterinary clinic. She
asserted that there are gaps to fill and further asserted that
with appropriate training and collaboration with veterinary
colleagues, the proposed legislation could be successful.
3:36:33 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS, on behalf of Representative Saddler, questioned
whether CSHB 70(HSS) was good as written or required further
refinement.
MS. ZIMMERMAN responded that in Maine, the Board of
Veterinarians assigned an emergency and critical care veterinary
specialist to help write the protocols and noted that the
protocols do not go outside of the clinicians' scope of care.
She further noted that there are areas of protocol where EMTs
are required to call a veterinarian. She stated that rules are
currently being written in Maine regarding grading
recommendations and continuing education requirements for EMTs.
3:37:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification whether Ms.
Zimmerman was in support of the legislation.
MS. ZIMMERMAN clarified that she was in support of CSHB 70(HSS).
She stated that she did not know the Alaska-specific EMS
protocols, noting that the protocols differ state to state. She
noted that in Maine, the protocol was specialized, and only
qualified individuals who were deemed necessary were allowed to
use protocols and receive training.
3:38:41 PM
SEAN MCPECK, DVM, representing self, testified in support of
CSHB 70(HSS). He stated that he is the owner of Tier I Medical
Center and has been a practicing veterinarian since 2010. He
noted that his first six years as a veterinarian were in the
U.S. Army where he was first exposed to the value of having
providers for operational canines, regardless of background in
human healthcare. He stated that he helped with the launch of
Canine Tactical Combat Casualty Care (CTCCC), which he said was
"hugely successful." He stressed that the proposed legislation
referred to point of care for active bleeding, blunt-force
trauma, heat illness, et cetera, not long-term medical care or
advanced surgical techniques. He emphasized that the goal was
to transport the canine to a veterinarian alive. He asserted
that there was a need for CSHB 70(HSS) in Alaska, echoing an
earlier speaker in saying that Pet Emergency Treatment, located
in Anchorage, was the only true emergency facility in the state.
He further stated that veterinarians "have a very, very small
footprint" in Alaska.
DR. MCPECK recalled two cases in the past 10 years in which an
operational canine could have been saved were medical care
allowed on the route to a veterinary clinic. He asserted that
EMTs were valuable resources that could be used to provide life-
saving interventions to working dogs being transported to
veterinary facilities. He echoed the previous speakers in
saying that the operational canines were extremely valuable,
noting that they are not easily replaced. He stated that Alaska
has few veterinary resources that are spread throughout the
"massive state" and there are operational canines working
throughout Alaska in "remote and austere conditions." He
concluded by offering his support for CSHB 70(HSS).
3:45:03 PM
RACHEL BERNGARTT, DVM, representing self, noted that she was a
former chair of the Alaska Board of Veterinary Examiners and is
opposed to CSHB 70(HSS), as currently written. She described a
scenario in which veterinarians were allowed to practice on
human patients when human doctors were not available and
asserted that would shift the argument. She asserted that the
comparison made by the previous speaker between humans and dogs
was "blurred." She stated that no one wants to see a dog die.
She offered her appreciation for the proposed legislation but
believed that it was unnecessary. She asserted that the bill
would allow for broad, unqualified care of animals. She
cautioned committee members to think about what precedent the
proposed legislation may set for future legislatures.
DR. BERNGARTT spoke to the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program
(PDMP) and explained that veterinarians were involuntarily
written into it and further, that it took years of legislative
lobbying to take veterinarians out of PDMP. She stated that the
PDMP was not suited for veterinarians. She said she had not
heard how drugs under the Controlled Substances Program (CSP)
would be accounted for in the PDMP. She further stated that she
had not heard about liability resolutions for owners. She noted
that dogs owned by SEADOGS were privately-owned. She stated
that EMTs were not qualified to perform the same or similar
roles as veterinarians. She questioned the legitimacy of
liability or informed consent under CSHB 70(HSS). She echoed
that the Board of Veterinary Examiners voted to oppose the
proposed legislation and noted their role is "to protect the
health, safety, and welfare of Alaskans and Alaskan pets." She
encouraged committee members to think about the potential
ramifications under CSHB 70(HSS) and stated that, as a private
individual, she opposed the proposed legislation.
3:49:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK asked whether veterinarians could perform
basic life-saving care on human patients in remote emergency
situations.
3:49:56 PM
DR. BERNGARTT replied that veterinarians cannot perform life-
saving care on human patients and asserted that veterinarians
should not perform medical interventions on human patients. She
opined that she would not want untrained individuals to provide
care on operational canines. She noted that operational canines
deserve care from licensed veterinarians and further emphasized
the veterinarians can remotely direct life-saving care. She
stressed that "there is no need for this bill."
3:51:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that good Samaritan laws for
liability exist for those trying to help others in good faith.
He asked whether good Samaritan laws were applicable to EMTs
attempting to provide life-saving care for operational canines.
DR. BERNGARTT asserted that there is a difference between good
Samaritan versus legislation that "purports to give powers,
responsibilities, authority, and duties to someone who doesn't
hold said license." She provided two different scenarios to
illustrate her point, asserting that an EMT who sees a car wreck
and tries to help a dog is different from a bill that authorizes
an EMT to provide medical care to a dog.
3:53:21 PM]
CO-CHAIR HALL asked what Dr. Berngartt would do in a scenario
where she was in a remote area with an individual who was
critically injured with no other resources available. She asked
whether Dr. Berngartt would choose to support said individual
medically as a trained veterinarian.
DR. BERNGARTT replied that the choice to support said individual
medically would be personal, not a licensure or statutory
choice. She stated that as a human being, depending on the
situation, she might try to offer support but that she "wouldn't
hold [herself] ... as a licensed professional to treat humans."
She repeated her concern over liability, noting that a subtle
but important distinction exists between someone saying that
they are licensed to treat versus someone who happens upon an
emergency and does their best to offer support.
3:55:40 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wished to testify, closed public testimony on CSHB 70(HSS).
3:55:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE referred to Section 7, [subsection] (c)
of CSHB 70(HSS), citing an "emergency medical technician or
mobile intensive care paramedic provides the emergency medical
service in accordance with a written protocol developed and
approved by a veterinarian". She asked what the referred
protocol might look like and referenced public testimony asking
for protocols.
3:56:41 PM
JEREMY HOUSTON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, on behalf
of Representative Schrage, prime sponsor of CSHB 70(HSS),
replied that all protocols of engagement would need to be
written and approved in consultation with a licensed
veterinarian and through the Department of Health (DOH).
3:57:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE referred to a paramedic calling a
veterinarian for instructions on treatment. She asked if that
scenario was considered treatment, and if that scenario is
allowed.
MR. HOUSTON responded that he did not know the specific statute,
but based on public testimony, surmised that that scenario is
legal.
3:57:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER requested details of canine technical
casualty care.
MR. HOUSTON deferred to Dr. Edwards.
3:58:32 PM
DR. EDWARDS responded that the canine technical, emergency, and
casualty care is based on the U.S. Military's Canine Tactical
Combat Casualty Care (K9 TCCC) guidelines. She explained that
most courses are around eight hours, noting that what was taught
was very limited. She explained that courses primarily consist
of survivable injuries and major life threats. She stated that
courses include thoracic trauma, needle decompression, the
nuances of why tourniquets do not work on dogs, oxygenation and
airway issues, major hemorrhage, and circulation injuries.
3:59:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK thanked all of the testifiers. She noted
that in Section 7 of CSHB 70(HSS), the proposed legislation
states that operational canines would receive care until
transferred to a licensed veterinarian at the "earliest
practicable opportunity." She acknowledged that, while there is
a distinction between a good Samaritan and acting in a
professional capacity, the proposed legislation would be limited
to situations that are "temporary and time-limited where there's
nothing else available."
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK further offered her desire to see reverse
legislation, where veterinarians could treat human patients.
She stated that in an ideal situation, all canines would go to
veterinarians and all people would go to human doctors. She
offered her belief that the proposed legislation did not
overstep and offered her strong support for the legislation as
written.
4:01:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for confirmation that currently,
EMTs shall not treat operational dogs without the threat of
prosecution.
MR. HOUSTON responded yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether good Samaritan laws protect
EMTs that might treat an operational dog.
MR. HOUSTON responded that the good Samaritan laws do not cover
EMTs and paramedics when they are on staff time.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked who would be treated first in
triage: humans or dogs.
4:02:59 PM
DR. EDWARDS responded that in other states where similar
legislation has been implemented, there is specific language
stating that human life always takes precedent over animal life.
She provided an anecdote about a car accident, noting that human
patients would always come first before animal patients.
4:03:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether modification of good
Samaritan laws would be sufficient to accomplish the intent of
the proposed legislation.
4:04:07 PM
MR. HOUSTON responded that he would get back to Representative
Saddler with an answer.
4:04:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE noted that there has not been a regular
veterinarian on the North Slope in a long time, stating that the
area occasionally receives a traveling veterinarian for routine
procedures. She stated that she had personally used the 24/7
call line through Pet Emergency Treatment and ultimately had to
transport the pet to an emergency facility. She stressed that
in Utqiagvik, the nearest veterinary clinic was over 700 miles
away and there are operational canines working on the North
Slope. She stated that she would like to see legislation that
allowed EMS responders to treat non-operational canines in
places that do not have veterinary clinics. She offered her
support for the proposed legislation, as is.
4:06:25 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS discussed the amendment deadline for CSHB
70(HSS).
[CSHB 70(HSS) was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|