The boundaries of the social have been stretched by recent scholarship in sociological animal studies. Social theory has been challenged by the posthuman turn (Cudworth, 2011a;Peggs, 2012; Taylor and Signal, 2011), and empirical work on families and households, popular culture, rurality, work and even sleep has begun to open up to the presence of the myriad other creatures that make up social worlds (respectively Charles, 2016;Cole and Stewart, 2014;Wilkie, 2010;Coulter, 2015; Hsu 2017). Much of this research, almost inevitably, relies on standard practices in both sociological research and in the representation of non-human beings and things. That is to say, non-human animals are included via humans talking and writing about them. We may include other animals in our projects, but we do so predominantly through standard human-centred methods.This paper reflects on a piece of research characterised by such contradiction and thereby considers the difficulties and possibilities of more-than-human methods, specifically ethnography. The data which provides the scaffolding for the empirical reflections is drawn from two sources: field notes observing interactions between "packs" of dog and human walkers and interviews with those living with dogs. What was methodologically distinctive, was that the majority of interviews were 'go-along' or 'walk and talk' where the researcher and two of the dogs-of-her-heart walked with human interviewees and their dog(s), allowing for observations of human/dog and dog/dog interactions also to be recorded.Other interviews were undertaken at interviewees' homes or in public places where the interviewees' animal companions were present. In addition, there was a period of intensive immersion -an ethnographic diary kept for a calendar year in the London field site which recorded events, interactions and routines of dogs, humans and other beings and things in