Bunnings (Australia) hardware stores

But...no. That's an assumption you are making about the solution - you are just assuming that the solution is banning pet dogs in public spaces. In which case, the people who pay for this solution are responsible pet dog owners.

Maybe there is a way to think about the costs and benefits in a more balanced and logical way? So, for example, Metrolink Manchester banning pet dogs (no doubt the very cheapest and easiest solution to solving the problem of anti-social behaviour by a minority) - what cost did that have on others? What about the lonely old person, with a dog as a different kind of lifeline, who now can't get about? Who can't walk their dog in a park because they needed the Metrolink to get there?

 

I accept that it is unfair for dogs to be banned from a public place due to a few bad owners, and that some people may be more dis-advantaged than others because of it. Society isn't perfect but I really don't feel that we would expect our dogs to be welcomed in all places just because we want to go there. Not all members of the public like dogs and some are allergic to them., so for me although we may want to take our dog into shops etc for many of us we don't actually need to and it's certainly not something that bothers me. If Juno can't go into a bar, café or shop with me that's not a problem and I haven't yet worked out why we should expect to be able to take our dogs there.

 

But I want to take my dog with me, I'm currently able to take my dog with me, freely, in a lot of places. If my enjoyment in doing that is removed, that's a huge and significant cost to me. That's a huge deal to me.

There is no reason that I should pay via restrictions on me for anti-social behaviour by others - no more than it's right to say I should be banned from certain places because I'm blond just because blond people are anti-social (which they are not, of course ).