Revised: August 2, 2012, 15:03 GMT
In a previous post SRUV reviewed a TV newscast in which Dr Gebhardt was asked to comment following a pit bull attack. You will find our previous post here.
There are a limited number of pit bull advocate talking points. Advocates draw on the same few rhetorical gestures whether they are in front of the TV camera or addressing a city council meeting. This is what makes academics and scientists so interesting when they're defending pit bulls: they may be poised and articulate, as Dr Gebhardt was in her television appearance, but the arguments are identical to those used by dogmen, criminals, and advocates of fighting breeds.
To be fair, Dr Gebhardt was arguing the policy which has been endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), so perhaps SRUV is unfair to take exception to her comments. We have been in contact with Adrian Hochstadt, JD, the Assistant Director for State Legislative and Regulatory Affairs of the AVMA. Mr Hochstadt advised SRUV of the AVMA policy regarding dangerous animals.
The AVMA policy is reprinted in its entirety below.
* * * * * * * *
American Veterinary Medical Association Policy
Dangerous Animal Legislation
(Oversight: CHAB; EB 03/88; Revised 11/01; Reaffirmed 11/05, 04/2010)
The AVMA supports dangerous animal legislation by state, county, or municipal governments provided that legislation does not refer to specific breeds or classes of animals. This legislation should be directed at fostering safety and protection of the general public from animals classified as dangerous.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please do not cut and paste comments or include extensive linking. Comments are moderated but we will post all comments which do not include profanity or ad hominem attacks. Play nice. The SRUV comment section is not a forum for the advocacy of fighting breeds.