And in both cases my experience has been that your first type of dog owner is in the majority. Again I stress, if those people were there without their dogs there would be no problem, but how can you tell one type of owner from another?

And what about the vast majority who fall between both of your definitions? In the smoker analogy, everybody shares the smoke to a greater or lesser extent, depending on whether the smoker is considerate or not. Same with dogs. My problem is that most dog owners are so besotted with their animals that they overlook the fact that others are not so. For me it's not so much being "disturbed" in the sense of the dog being a bit annoying - it's deeper than that. I'm part of a silent very large number who are positively uncomfortable with any animals (unfortunately allergic to cats for example) and to be told "he won't bite" when confronted - as if the dog was doing me a favour by not biting me (!) - is no consolation at all.

Which brings a thought to mind - how often do we hear that said? The fact that dog owners are forever saying "he won't bite" must be an indication that a dog biting you is a distinct possibility in the normal course of events, but that this particular one won't actually bite you on this occasion - just a thought, with tongue only partially in cheek.

No surprise then that I won't be at the festival campsite - I've found a delightful little site only a short bike ride away. NOw don't start me on the dogs versus cyclists issue ...........

cheers, Terry