Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Operational Canines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves amended bill allowing limited EMT emergency care for operational canines
Summary
House Bill 70, as amended, allows emergency medical technicians to provide limited emergency services to operational (working) canines under protocols approved by medical directors; one broader amendment to remove consent and entry limits failed earlier in the hearing.
The House Labor and Commerce Committee on April 9 adopted an amendment and reported House Bill 70 out of committee, clearing the bill to move forward with changes that define and limit how emergency medical services personnel may provide emergency care to operational (working) canines.
Representative Sadler offered an amendment (I.5) that would have narrowed some authorities in the bill, including removing a section that allows EMTs to enter private premises or destroy a vehicle to reach an injured canine, and removing a requirement that EMTs’ authority be tied to a document filed with a medical director and approved by the Department of Health. After discussion the amendment failed on a roll call vote, two yeas and five nays.
Representative Sadler then offered a narrower substitute amendment (I.7) that the bill sponsor supported; the committee approved I.7. Representative Shroggy, the bill sponsor, and his staff said they worked with stakeholders to refine the language. Sponsor staff described two sections where they opposed removals (sections 2 and 3) because Alaska’s existing statute allows EMS to enter domiciles in emergency calls and because medical directors, not the Department of Health alone, define the specific tasks EMS personnel may perform within their licensed scope of practice.
Brian Webb and other invited witnesses explained that, under Alaska law, dogs are private property and that treatment of operational canines typically requires consent from the handler or direction from medical control; medical directors determine local credentialing and the permitted scope of practice for EMS clinicians.
Roll-call record for amendment I.5: Representative Nelson — Yes; Representative Sadler — Yes; Representatives Burke, Kerrick, Colom, Hall and Fields — No. The amendment failed, 2 yeas to 5 nays. After adopting the narrower amendment I.7, Representative Hall moved to report HB 70 as amended; committee co-chairs recorded no objection and HB 70 was reported from committee with accompanying fiscal notes.
Why it matters: The bill clarifies when and how EMTs and paramedics may provide emergency interventions to working dogs used in law enforcement, search-and-rescue and similar operations, while the adopted amendment seeks to limit EMT authority to emergency medical services consistent with medical-direction protocols.
Next steps: HB 70, as amended, will go to the full legislature for further consideration.
