Zen,
I wasn't responding to you in isolation. I guess it looks that way because one thread follows another, when in fact lots and lots of people contribute to the discussion.

A problem with all long threads is that after a while people tend not to read the thread from the start and points start to be endlessly repeated.

I have read all this from the start and the case seems for banning dogs seems very strong:

1. Dogs sometimes, though rarely, bite people
2. Dogs excrete daily and it is not always cleaned up effectively
3. Dogs bark a bit and spoil some performances, though not much
4. Although it's hard to tell, dogs don't get much from festivals
5. According to many dog owners and lovers above, dogs are at least ill at ease in the festival environment
6. I think it is unreasonable to expect festival organisers to "police" dogs.
7. Blaming children for not knowing how to approach dogs is stupid

I recognise the pleasure dog owners get. I have delivered political leaflets 4 or 5 times a year for nearly 40 years. I never go into gardens were I suspect their may be a dog. Although most dogs are harmless I cannot tell which is which and neither can children.

The evidence presented above leads me to think all festivals should ban dogs.

On a not unrelated theme I am not convinced that the level of "First Aid" at most festivals is adequate. Sooner or later somebody will have serious heart trouble, a major wound, broken bones or breathing difficulty, brought on or rendered more difficult because of the nature of the venue.

Was Woodstock remembered as the festival at which more people were born than died?

L in C