In this article we use actual instances of human conduct with animals to reflect on the debates about animal agency in human activities. Where much of psychology, philosophy, and sociology begin with a fundamental scepticism over animal mind as the grounds for its inquiries, we join with a growing body of work that examines the continuities between animals and humans, and accepts the positive possibilities of anthropomorphising animals. We are interested in the reason and intelligence that animals display in their activities with humans. Inverting the typical approach of explaining canine reason by reference to the behaviour of their wild counterparts, we describe human-canine action as it occurs in the widespread, historically assembled, and spatially situated activity of dog walking in parks. We treat dog walking as a living accomplishment of owner and dog methodically displaying intent and producing social objects. THE PLACES OF HUMAN-ANIMAL MIND Philosophers, ethologists, neuroscientists, builders of robots, animal rights groups, and others have fiercely debated the relations between animal mind and human mind (Bekoff & Jamieson, 1990; Griffin, 1992; Midgely, 1983; Nagel, 1986). A persistent impulse in these debates has been the delimitation of what an animal is and what a human is, or if you like, the boundary between animal being and human being. Related scientific investigations of canine mind and human-canine psychology (Bergler, 1988) have proceeded mostly from the premise that dogs are quite naturally different from humans. Although we do not deny the difference between dogs and humans, we are wary of the next move that is made by many ethologists, psychologists, zoologists, and neuroscientists to sunder dogs from their place beside us as fellow subjects. In her reading of Charles Darwin's The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals, Crist (1999, 2002) recovered a positive and bold anthropomorphism as a constitutive stance in Darwin's studies of animals and insects. For Darwin there was an "evolutionary continuity" (Crist, 1999, p. 49) between all animals that in turn unavoidably included mental and behavioural continuities, and this came with the further implication