Dear Sir,

A few months ago in a quiet neighbourhood in Smith's, the barking of a dog broke the usual mid-morning peace.

This was not the type of barking heard periodically in this area - the few short sounds of alert from one dog protecting its yard from another dog taking its owner for a walk. This was the sound of distress, frantic and unceasing.

I left my house to investigate, believing that I would find a helpless dog caught up in something restricting its movement.

What I found was a large dog that had been, for about fifteen minutes by then, trying desperately to break into a rabbit hutch.

My guess... it didn't want to play with the terrified rabbits huddled inside. Luckily, the hutch held up and the rabbits were unharmed.

But let me get to the point. This large, frenzied, bloodthirsty dog was not a Pit Bull, a Staffordshire, a Rottweiler, or any other Molosser breed on the banned list.

I mean, as far as I know, Golden Retrievers, in all their blonde fluffiness, are not considered dangerous killers.

I know that there are differences between this incident and the incident reported [in the Bermuda Sun on Friday].

The dog in my story showed no human aggression toward me or toward the woman who eventually dragged it away.

It also showed no dog aggression to the tiny minpin that had been trying to protect the rabbits.

Obviously, this was not the case with the Pit Bull in the other story.

However, I do wonder exactly how "vicious and aggressive" this dog truly was if a 71-year-old man "wrestled with [it]" and "managed to restrain [it]" and yet there was no mention of him having been bitten, scratched, or injured in any way.

This must have been an oversight, as I am sure that any injuries caused by the dog would have been documented and printed in detail.

Just as I am sure that it would have been documented that the dog did not cause any injuries and printed (in detail) immediately after the statement, "I am really relieved no one was hurt."

I can recall other encounters I have had with aggressive dogs.

The one time I was charged at by a dog, the one time that I was bitten by a dog, or the time that a dog, off-leash at Tom Moore's Jungle, tried twice to attack my young son and me. None of these dogs were Pit Bulls.

I can also recall the times that I have been able to approach an unfamiliar Pit Bull without fear.

This includes the mother Pit Bull who allowed me, a complete stranger, to handle her newly born litter.

I can especially recall the most recent time just last month, when I came home late one night to find a strange, huge, adult male Pit Bull alone in my yard, barely visible in the dark.

In less than five minutes this dog and I had adopted each other and I have been caring for him ever since.

Pit Bulls are being vilified in today's society, a complete turnaround from how they were viewed several decades ago.

Through no fault of their own but because of the nature of their breeding, these dogs are stuck between the proverbial rock that is the inhumane treatment of abusive or neglectful owners and the hard place, media and governmental agencies that have a one-sided, prejudicial and sensationalized view of them and treat them according to those views.

There are many truths about Pit Bulls. One truth is that they can and do kill. But that is only one.

Another is that the breed ban has been about as effective as Prohibition.

There are many informative websites on the breed that can be found by simply googling the name. I have found a few that are quite eye-opening concerning the breed's origins, history and surprising present day statistics.

Many people know the phrase, "There are two sides to every story." In the case of the Pit Bull's story there are many sides and they should all be considered and reported. I also know and believe another phrase, "There are no bad dogs only bad owners."

- K.A.N. Richardson, Devonshire.