I refer to your report Woof!Woof! MBSA barking up the wrong tree .

The hoo-ha about dogs in Shah Alma is due to MBSA's ignorance about our canine friends. It is a clich, but it is nevertheless true that, 'there are no bad dogs, only bad owners". Dogs, whatever the breed, are not usually aggressive. Some have been mistreated or rendered neurotic by

irresponsible owners; these are 'fear biters" ie, they bite in 'self protection'.

I agree with the various groups that owners should be educated on their responsibilities towards their pet. If a dog should cause trouble, then the owner should be punished - not the dog. MBSA's ignorance is probably because of the fact that most of its officers are Muslims. They have not had any contact with dogs hence no experience or knowledge about these loyal and lovable creatures.

The point is, MBSA should not make decisions based on ignorance for by doing so, it deprives a section of the community from exercising their freedom to keep pets of their choice. How many cases of attacks by dogs have there been in the last five years? Let's not overreact by enacting drastic and unreasonable by-laws because of just one incident.

In the unfortunate cases of those who have been bitten, they should sue the irresponsible owners. MBSA should also fine these owners and ban them from owning dogs for a period of time - just like a driver who habitually gets into accidents is banned from driving.