"I can envisage all sorts of practical difficulties with your suggestion - .... Unless you insist on imposing your love of taking a dog to a folk festival on other people. "

Agreed it's for Sandra & her committee to make the call on what is suitable at Shrewsbury. Any suggestion has practical difficulties, yours, mine, anybody else's.

However, I'm trying to make a separation here between taking action to prevent/minimise risk of actual injury, and taking action to prevent irritation - I see them as very different. Lots of things that other people do at festivals annoy me but I'm not suggesting banning them, cause I think within reason we should all just be tolerant of what other people like to do, whether that is bringing our dogs, children, cars, or singing painfully out of tune.

You seem in some of your posts to be saying that action should be taken to prevent anybody being injured (fair enough) and mixing that up with things that should be done so that those who don't want to even see/hear a dog at a festival can do so if they wish. That's the bit I have issue with - because I might decide I don't want to see or hear an annoyingly loud drunk person at a festival but I see that essentially as my problem, to be dealt with on a case by case basis by common sense guidelines and a bit of thoughtfulness and tolerance all round, not something that should be legislated against by the festival.

I disagree that my 'some restricted areas' suggestion and your 'totally segragated area' suggestion amount to the same thing. I'd only restrict them from any area where, if they are on a short-ish lead, people cannot keep out of their physical reach if they so choose, plus specific kids areas. So, probably would ban from crowded bars and venues, probably wouldn't ban from open green bits of the site (including camp site) or large non-crowded venues. That is way less restriction than you seem to feel is necessary.