My point is, if you feel it reasonable to rule against something to remove a small risk, then there are lots of other candidates too, for things to ban. Why pick on dogs specifically? Why stop there?

You are perfectly entitled to make that point - but some festivals already ban dogs. Shrewsbury organisers - after an incident when a child was bitten - are clearly asking questions about it too.

I think Steve has a good point - let's have a special dog friendly area where all the dogs and their owners can be together - with special dog-loving stewards to look after them. After all there will be plenty of volunteers from all these dog lovers going to festivals.

All dog-owners to pitch their tents/park their caravans in this area.

Dogs allowed to wander freely in this area if the owners so wish.

People can come up and make conversation with the dogs if they so wish.

Dogs to have a season ticket for the time they are on site - same price as a person ticket to pay for fencing to mark the area and extra security when some lager lout with a boxer on a long lead needs to be asked to leave. (See previous posts from Richard Bridge)

No dogs to be left alone, at least one person to be with their own dog at all times.

All dog owners to show insurance against the possibilty of their dog causing damage to people or property and up-to-date veterinary certificates showing a clean bill of health. (After all as responsible dog owners you have this already don't you?)

Any dog causing trouble to be asked to leave immediately along with their owners.

No refunds.

What could be fairer than that?