HB 70-EMERGENCY MED SVCS; OPERATIONAL CANINES    3:34:43 PM CHAIR DUNBAR announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 70(L&C) am "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." 3:35:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE, District 12, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of HB 70 spoke to the following summary: [Original punctuation provided.] House Bill 70 Version G.A "Rico's Law" An act relating to emergency medical services for operational canines. House Bill 70 empowers Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel to deliver on-scene point-of-injury (POI) emergency care and transport for operational canines (OpK9s). Operational canines are essential members of law enforcement, other government operations, and search- and-rescue teams. These courageous animals amplify the success of countless military, law enforcement, search-and-rescue, and humanitarian missions. Their roles even extend to police or fire chaplaincy during crises. 3:37:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE continued with the introduction of HB 70: This bill is named "Rico's Law" in honor of Alaska State Trooper K9 Rico, whose end of watch occurred on March 26, 2017. Rico was fatally shot while heroically attempting to apprehend a suspect after a lengthy pursuit on the Parks Highway in Wasilla, Alaska. K9 Rico, like all operational canines, demonstrated unwavering dedication to protecting and defending his community. These animals are more than just assets or propertythey are teammates, partners, and family members who deserve emergency care and transportation rights. Operational canines, especially those deployed in tactical or high-threat situations, face significant risks of injury or preventable death. Currently, Alaska lacks statutory authority allowing EMS personnel to apply life-saving care to these animals. Under current law, providing such care could be deemed "practicing veterinary medicine without a license," a violation under AS 08.98.120, carrying severe penalties. The super-rural nature of Alaska adds another dimension of acuity for our operational canines outside of Alaska's major urban centers. Alaska's EMS professionals already possess the equipment, supplies, and medications needed to adapt existing prehospital standards of care for human patients to operational canines. Training programs like the K9 Tactical Emergency Casualty Care (K9 TECC) course provide additional training for clinicians to confidently manage operational canine emergencies. The passage of this bill would eliminate legal barriers, enabling EMS personnel to administer life-saving care and transport injured operational canines to emergency veterinary facilities. With minimal investment by our participating EMS services, Alaska EMS can ensure that our operational canines have a fighting chance at survival when injured in the line of duty. 3:38:48 PM JEREMY HOUSTON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided the sectional analysis for HB 70: [Original punctuation provided.] Sectional Analysis House Bill 70, Version G.A - "Rico's Law"  An act related to emergency medical services and operational canines. Section 1: Amends AS 08.98.125 to allow emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive care paramedics to perform emergency medical services on an operational canine as authorized under AS 18.08.093 without a license to practice veterinary medicine. Section 2: Amends AS 18.08.075(a) to authorize emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive care paramedic to enter a building or premises where a report of an injury or illness has taken place, or where there is reasonable cause to believe an operational canine has been injured or is ill, to render emergency medical care and direct the removal of a motor vehicle or other thing determined necessary to prevent further harm to operational canines. 3:40:13 PM MR. HOUSTON continued with the sectional analysis for HB 70: Section 3: Amends AS 18.08.082(a) to direct the Department of Heath to prescribe a course or other requirements prerequisite to the issuance of certificates or licenses that provide for authorization for a licensed emergency medical technician or mobile intensive care paramedic to provide emergency medical services to an operational canine as enumerated on a written document filed with the department by the medical director and approved by the department in regulation. Section 4: Amends AS 18.08.086(a) to provide for civil liability protection to providers, or a director of a provider licensed under AS 18.08.082 who administers emergency medical services to an operational canine within the scope of the person's certification or licensure and if the operational canine reasonably seems to be in immediate danger of serious harm or death. Section 5: Amends AS 18.08.087 to remove language limiting physicians, advanced practice registered nurses, or physician assistants' permission to disclose medical information of a patient to emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive care paramedics when the information is not for the purpose of evaluating the performance of an emergency medical technician, mobile intensive care paramedic or physician. Section 6: Adds two new subsections to AS 18.08.087. The first allows licensed veterinarians to disclose medical or hospital records of an operational canine to an emergency medical technician or mobile intensive care paramedic for the purpose of evaluating the performance of an emergency medical technician or mobile intensive care paramedic. The second adds language restricting physicians, advanced practice registered nurses, or physician assistants' permission to disclose medical information of a patient to emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive care paramedics when the information is not for the purpose of evaluating the performance of an emergency medical technician, mobile intensive care paramedic or physician. 3:42:08 PM MR. HOUSTON continued with the sectional analysis for HB 70: Section 7: Adds one new section to AS 18.08 with three subsections. Subsection (a) allows emergency medical technicians or mobile intensive care paramedics to provide emergency medical services to an operational canine if the emergency medical technician or mobile intensive care paramedic reasonably determines there is immediate danger of serious harm to or death of the operational canine, determines that a veterinarian is unavailable to provide emergency medical services to the operational canine soon enough to address the danger, is authorized to provide emergency medical services to an operational canine, and has informed consent from the owner or someone authorized to make medical decisions about the operational canine or is providing medical service in accordance with a written protocol developed by a veterinarian. Subsection (b) requires the emergency medical technician or mobile intensive care paramedic to transfer the operational canine to a licensed veterinarian at the earliest practicable opportunity. Subsection (c) prohibits emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive care paramedics to provide care to operational canines if a person requires emergency medical services. Section 8: Amends AS 18.08.200 to define "veterinarian" in this chapter the same as it is under AS 08.98 and "operational canine" as a dog used by law enforcement or other government operations; or in search and rescue operations. Section 9: Sets an effective date of January 1st, 2026. 3:44:23 PM CHAIR TOBIN noted that some communities rely on service dogs or sled dogs for transportation and assistance. She asked if the definition in Section 8 includes working service animals. 3:45:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE replied that there has been discussion about expanding the definition of operational canines including service dogs, though veterinarians have raised concerns about the scope of HB 70. 3:46:31 PM CHAIR DUNBAR asked for confirmation on the necessity of Section 4 on civil liability, asking who would be liable if a paramedic unintentionally harms an operational canine owned by the police. He noted that Section 1, which addresses unauthorized veterinary practice, might already address these concerns. 3:46:50 PM SENATOR HUGHES joined the meeting. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE replied that privately owned search-and- rescue dogs can meet the definition of operational canines. He said if someone providing aid exceeds their veterinary skills and harms the dog, it could create grounds for legal liability. This potential for lawsuits is the source of concern. 3:48:23 PM CHAIR DUNBAR stated that some operational canines are privately owned and contracted by the government rather than being publicly owned. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE noted that in some cases, volunteer search-and-rescue dogs may respond independently. He said emergency personnel on scene could be legally prohibited from providing care if the dog is injured. 3:48:59 PM CHAIR DUNBAR stated that he finds it surprising that a paramedic could be sued for trying to save a dog and acknowledged that such laws exist to address these situations. 3:49:16 PM SENATOR CLAMAN asked how frequently someone has been sued for trying to save an operational canine. REPRESENATIVE SCHRAGE replied that this happens rarely. 3:50:05 PM SENATOR TOBIN asked whether the legislation included provisions for disclosure and consent, allowing an emergency technician to explain that, while they are not veterinarians, they do have medical training when offering care. 3:50:31 PM MR. HOUSTON replied that HB 70 does not include any requirement for EMTs or paramedics to disclose their qualifications to the owner or handler of an operational canine before providing care. 3:50:52 PM CHAIR TOBIN noted that disclosure and consent are commonly used to reduce liability and suggest that good-faith efforts to save a life. She asked whether Good Samaritan protections apply to dogs and argued the protection should apply in such circumstances. 3:51:29 PM SENATOR HUGHES noted that while the sponsor's statement references a K9 Tactical Emergency Casualty Care course, HB 70 does not require EMS professionals to take it. She asked whether the course would be incorporated into EMS training if HB 70 passes and why it was not mandated. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE replied that HB 70 requires EMS organizations to create an opt-in training program to ensure their professionals are prepared, allowing them to use courses like K9 Tactical Emergency Casualty Care or another program of their choosing. 3:52:45 PM SENATOR HUGHES asked if HB 70 passes could an EMS professional face liability for choosing not to provide aid under the bill as written. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE replied that there is no obligation to provide care. HB 70 allows EMS organizations to adopt policies permitting care for operational canines though, does not require EMS professionals to provide that care. HB 70 also requires that human patients be prioritized over canines when both are present. 3:53:46 PM SENATOR GIESSEL noted that HB 70 does mention consent on page 6, line 4, "...the emergency medical technician or mobile intensive care paramedic has obtained informed consent from the owner of the operational canine or a person authorized to make medical decisions about the operational canine..." 3:54:21 PM CHAIR DUNBAR announced invited testimony on HB 70. 3:54:50 PM BRIAN WEBB, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified by invitation on HB 70 and explained his background in the medical field and with canines. He stated that Alaska's operational canines face the same dangers as human responders, though EMS clinicians are not legally allowed to treat them, forcing some to intervene at personal risk. HB 70 creates a voluntary, opt-in process allowing trained EMS agencies to provide emergency care and transport to veterinarians, prioritizing human patients and accounting for Alaska's remote geography. He said that HB 70 is modeled after laws in other states and supported by military experience, peer-reviewed research, and a broad coalition of EMS and veterinary professionals. HB 70 is not mandatory statewide and applies only to agencies with the capacity and need to participate. 3:58:26 PM MR. WEBB stated that HB 70 is the first phase, with a proposed accelerated second phase focused on designing policies, protocols, training standards, and oversight through a collaborative EMS and veterinary advisory panel. This process would tailor national best practices to Alaska, strengthen coordination with veterinarians, and ensure operational canines receive appropriate emergency care, with the goal of passing HB 70 to provide legal clarity and save lives. 4:00:30 PM MELISSA EDWARDS, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified by invitation on HB 70. She stated that she supports HB 70 because it establishes a clear legal framework allowing EMS providers to deliver pre-hospital care to operational canines without relying on Good Samaritan or owner-agent theories that often do not apply to paid EMS personnel. HB 70 prioritizes human patients, respects veterinary practice acts, and allows veterinarian- directed, scope-appropriate EMS care near the point of injury to reduce preventable deaths, using training and oversight developed collaboratively with the veterinary community. The bill leverages existing EMS skills within established scopes of practice rather than expanding them. This approach has been shown in other states and in military settings to improve survival and reduce disability in injured operational canines. 4:04:56 PM MS. EDWARDS stated that if HB 70 passes, veterinary and EMS regulatory boards should jointly oversee protocol development, training, and continuing education for EMS-provided canine care. She said with veterinary-approved, protocol-driven oversight and targeted training, EMS providers can safely deliver scope- appropriate, pre-hospital care and transport for injured operational canines. The skills largely translate from human EMS practice with focused instruction in comparative anatomy, physiology, and safe handling. Evidence from other states shows this training can be completed efficiently while maintaining provider and animal safety. 4:07:03 PM CHAIR DUNBAR opened public testimony on HB 70. 4:07:36 PM MARY ANN HOLLICK, representing self, Eagle River, Alaska, testified with concerns on HB 70. She stated that she supports animal welfare yet cautions that HB 70 requires strong veterinary oversight, clear limits of care, and rigorous training before EMS treats canines. She emphasized safety, accountability, proper communication, and rapid transfer to veterinary emergency care. 4:09:55 PM NELSON PRIDDY, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified with concerns on HB 70. He argued HB 70 should simply protect first responders from liability when providing basic aid to working or search-and-rescue dogs that are injured, rather than creating a complex regulatory system. He urged keeping HB 70 simple so responders can offer lifesaving first aid without fear of discipline, noting that while not all animals will survive, some will be saved. 4:12:6 PM MCKAYLA DICK, Member At Large, Alaska State Veterinary Medical Association, North Pole, Alaska, testified in opposition to HB 70. She agreed with HB 70's original goal of saving injured working animals through first aid and transport however, she raises concerns about insufficient veterinary oversight. She said she supports creating a task force or advisory board including veterinarians and EMS to develop durable legislation while ensuring veterinarians are included in the process. 4:14:27 PM SENATOR HUGHES asked Ms. Dick how she would recommend amending HB 70 to make it workable and secure the association's support if a task force was not an option. 4:14:52 PM MS. DICK replied that first aid and transport for injured canines should require direct guidance from a licensed veterinarian, noting that emergency veterinarians are available and willing to provide real-time consultation. She urged that this requirement be explicitly included in the legislation. 4:16:06 PM SEAN MCPECK, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, testified in support of HB 70. She stated that simple pre-hospital interventions by trained medical personnel have repeatedly saved the lives of working dogs in military and civilian settings. Given Alaska's vast geography and time-critical injuries, she argued that allowing EMS to provide basic, well-defined canine emergency care, without unnecessary delays, can prevent avoidable deaths and is practical with limited, targeted training. 4:19:24 PM CHAIR DUNBAR closed public testimony on HB 70. 4:20:09 PM CHAIR DUNBAR held HB 70 in committee.