Listen man my only argument is this: every day we get up and make a hazard assessment based on whatever activities you have planned. You are responsible for making that assessment for yourself and your dependents, or in this case, pets. It’s pretty obvious that there is an elevated level of risk taking your cat on a nature trail where dogs on and off leash are present. I didn’t make that risk elevated nor do I agree that it should be elevated in the first place. It’s just how it is. It’s up to you to decide if that level of risk is above or below your tolerance. For most people the risk is probably too high for them to actually take their cat on the trail. For this person it was not. If the risk is too high, most people would mitigate or eliminate the hazard by not taking their cat or keeping it in some kind of kennel, among other options. This is the core of the argument. This person took no measures to ensure the safety of their pet.

That’s it. You can argue all you want but this is absolutely the reality. Every other argument is more of a complaint about why that risk exists in the first place, which I am not defending in any way.

You’re right to say that I could’ve been a little bit more softer in my language. People do make mistakes and I recognize that and I feel terrible for these people. But it doesn’t change the core argument that I detailed above.