Thoroughly agree with this proposal. As much as I loved Sunniva's Advice Process (in fact we use it as the prime example of how Advice Processes can work), I believe last year's incident puts things into a different perspective for this year. Plus the point you mention - that dogs are in this country at great risk of being put down if they bite a human - is my main concern.

One thing to consider might be support-animals. Can we ban support-animals if that means a burner cannot attend? I don't know what the ethical, legal and/or community take on this is, nor do I have an opinion. Would love to hear from someone that is in that position and/or knows more.

I full on agree with this proposal. Festivals are not a safe place for dogs not only regarding their usual routine but also regarding the overwhelming sound and light situation.

An exemption could be made for registered and properly trained service animals though.

Hi all! Former Dog Lead of 2022 and co-Dog Lead of 2021 speaking 🐾

1. I fully support the proposal not to allow any dogs onsite this year, as has been the way we do things at Kiez Burn all other years, with the small exception of a handful of highly regulated dogs and dog owners in 2021 and 2022. If someone should feel inspired and responsible to try and find a safer way to bring dogs to Kiez Burn in coming years, I agree that this process should be a timely, orderly and mindful one. I'm available if anyone wants advice for this in duly preparation of Kiez Burn 2024 🙂

2. The incident last year was truly unfortunate. As with everything else at a burn, unpredictable accidents can happen. All though the dog owner communicated to the other human to please not engage with his dog a few times right before the incident, as his dog was momentarily tied up and the other human was a complete stranger, he was unable to prevent his dog from being reactive towards the other human. The dog in question had been to over 10 festivals before, and did something it had never done before. Fortunately the dog owner showed impressive responsibility and sobriety directly afterwards, despite his shock from the situation. The dog was immediately removed from other humans, they left the event not long after as per protocol, and the owner hired a professional dog trainer to prevent a similar situation to ever happen again.

3. Absolutely no dogs were in any danger of being put down as a result of the incident that took place during the event last year. German laws state that dogs with a violent history will have doggy criminal records, and if the dogs have several violent acts on record, it may be taken away from its owners. Only in very severe cases with particularly aggressive animals, the local authorities may have the right to seize and euthanize the animal (source). These examples are as far as can be from the dog in question. I ask everyone to please refrain from exaggerating the severity of last year's dog incident, and to avoid adding redundant concerns to the inevitable rumours and talk about what happened.

4. Kiez Burn has always welcomed service animals, and previous dog proposals have been completely unrelated to any pre-existing rules on service animals. Please try not to confuse the two - all though Kiez Burn is a community-driven event, we still have a long way to go when it comes to accessibility and inclusion for disabled folks. Making it easy for people to participate and belong with their service animals should be an absolute minimum from our side.

@Sunniva Thank you so much for this thoughtful reply. I will add your corrections about the doggy criminal record! :)

I support this proposal, as sad as it is after As Site Lead Realizer, the incident was indeed unfortunate but also caused a lot of stress that stretched over more than one volunteer shift time frame. Despite leaving without any fuss from site, the eviction of the participant was only necessary due to the dog being on site and to the anguish of the Leads who had to deal with this.

I echo Caro in that the Dog Advice Process has been very well executed by Sunniva, but would argue that it has failed as a concept as participants were still harmed regardless of the very well though out guidelines - and seemingly this was partially the fault of the person who engaged with the animal - but as much as I love furry friends, the safety and wellbeing of the 2 legged participants still comes first for me, at least in this role as Site Lead(er). I wish to prevent another incident like this happening again.

I would also like to add that although this incident was the worst unfortunate outcome of the Dog Policy, there were also other more minor incidents. i.e. folks bringing their unregistered dogs on site and then being forced to camp beyond the gate instead of with their friends. I recognise this is not the direct fault of the Dog Policy, rather folks not informing themselves or trying to take liberties. I feel like a clear cut 'no dogs allowed' stance from Kiez Burn will prevent further chance taking participants to assume it will be OK if they show up with their pals with paws.

Agree, though I want to also make a note that some disabled burners may not necessarily have (through being marginalised as an immigrant or through socioeconomic status) the correct legal status for a service dog, that there be some consideration made to individual circumstances regarding this. I know this might not be practical to think of this year, but maybe in the future. I have a (trauma related, illogical) dog phobia that I was gladly able to manage fine the first year we had dogs (I knew the dogs in question,) last year I am so glad I didn't meet any unleashed dogs. I would also potentially suggest in the survival guide that no burners interact with unknown animals if they are intoxicated as in most cases it will be a very risky idea.

I agree with this proposal. No dogs except for registered service dogs seems like the best course of action for 2023.

I totally support this proposal, thank you for bringing it forward!

Last year, despite of the communication, some people showed up with unregistered dogs, taking for granted that they are allowed. This was talked through and solved. Some other people had no clue dogs were allowed, and were irritated. And we still had this 2 unleashed neighbour dogs walking around every now and then, which confused people.

So, I would suggest to add this facts very clearly to the communication done. (Then, still no one reads the information, but we try :)

And maybe a small detail: when reading the proposal, I missed a pair of points:

• in advantages of this proposal: avoiding stress for participants, who dislike/are afraid of dogs (since the mere fact of stressing out when seeing a dog around, was a recurrent comment during the first dogs AP)

• in disadvantages: arranging a dog alternative care and stay during KB, is more than upsetting, but a potentially complicated hassle and expensive thing.

¡Thank you!

Amazing thanks for the comments everyone. For me the important part is having a decision that if someone shows up with a dog they are asked to leave.

They can come back without the dog if they want but so that we have a process already in place - in the ticket email and other comms so that it is entirely clear.

@Olivia khan-Do One more thing: My experience is that some consider the free camping area not to be a part of the event and its regulations, so for clarity I suggest that you specify all the areas affected by this dog ban.