I guess I'm starting early with this...

I guess I'm starting early with my passion and being outspoken. This is why I started a personal blog...

As a service dog handler, I don't believe people should have pets in non-pet friendly places. As a service dog handler and a dog trainer, I don't believe people should have reactive and aggressive dogs out in public places unmuzzled, putting people, children, and other animals at risk. I am being told this hardline stance isn't realistic or compassionate.

Why is my saying people should follow the law and not bring pets into stores where the law forbids them not compassionate? Why is my stance that people not bring reactive and aggressive dogs to public places where doing so puts other at risk of injury and harm not compassionate? Why is it wrong for me to expect people to follow the law and not endanger others by bringing untrained, reactive, and aggressive dogs to public places where they put people, children, and other animals at risk for injury? I don't think those things are unreasonable.

I don't really give a shit about your convenience or your special circumstances or any other reason you think you should be allowed to do so. Your untrained pet doesn't belong in non-pet friendly places, especially places the law specifically forbids them to be (like establishments that sell food). Your reactive and aggressive dog doesn't belong in public places, especially non-pet friendly places (especially unmuzzled), putting people, children, and other animals at risk.

Me saying this doesn't mean I don't have compassion. It means I DO have compassion for those who would be most likely to be affected by your entitlement of bringing your dog where it doesn't belong, people and animals who will be put at risk by your dog's dangerous and/or out of control behavior.