Christmas-free zone

By this time of year, I know that many of you, both dogs and humans, will be feeling stressed about Christmas. All those presents to wrap (and unwrap..), cards to deliver, dumb photos to pose for, parties to attend, food to cook/steal, relatives to visit, family tensions to defuse....

So welcome to my blog, a Christmas-free space, where the spirit of intellectual enquiry remains active over the holiday season, and refined contemplation wins out over rampant consumerism. 

Sadly, the Scottish weather has returned to normal. But no matter. It is good to be indoors for we have serious matters to discuss today. A new and highly relevant scientific study no less! Have you seen this week's copy of the New Scientist magazine?

Yes, finally, we have conclusive and objective proof, that, all things considered, DOGS ARE SUPERIOR TO CATS.

I have already shared with article with my dear friend Stella, who occasionally has 'issues' with her resident feline Ali Zophia. We both agree that there is much here to relish. I shall quote directly from one paragraph, on the subject of the relative utility of the two species:

Dogs can hunt, herd and guard. They can sniff out drugs and bombs and even whale faeces; they guide blind and deaf people, race for sport, pull sleds, find someone buried by an avalanche, help children learn and possibly even predict earthquakes. Cats are good if you have an infestation of rodents.

I think you get the drift. 

If you want to read more, click this link: Dogs vs Cats - the Great Pet Showdown

Time to eat the dog?

Well can you believe it?

There's an article in this week's New Scientist (my favourite magazine, as you know) which asks the question "How Green is Your Pet?". It says, basically, that having a dog is worse for the environment than owning an SUV!

Some supposedly very clever scientist has worked out, apparently, that the average dog has an annual carbon footprint almost twice that of a Toyota Land Cruiser. Mostly because of all the meat we eat. 

Well, fellow dogs, leaving aside the dubiousness of the concept of an 'average' dog, this seems to me mighty bad news. Especially for those of us who live in households where the humans are environmentally conscious and into sustainable living. I mean, heaven forbid that we are all going to be forced onto a vegan diet! 

Time for a reasoned response - let's not panic just yet. 

It it clear to me that these so-called researchers have failed to recognize that a dog can also reduce a household's carbon emissions. Consider the following points:

• As (at least in Europe) it is hard to get on an aeroplane with a dog, we force our owners to reduce the amount they fly, and we all know that flying produces loads of CO2.
• When I am in the car, Gail has to drive more slowly (i.e. in a more fuel efficient fashion) as I stand up and start to look sick if she corners too fast on our twisty Scottish roads.
• When your human has cold hands, they can warm them up by stroking their pet - so much more satisfactory all round than turning up the heating.
• Likewise, many of us perform bed-warming duties too, do we not?.

I am sure that my blogging buddies can think of many more ways in which we dogs are environmentally friendly, and I invite you to leave your suggestions in my comments box. These will I hope form the basis of a strongly worded letter to the New Scientist's editor!

(And in case you're wondering, a cat is equivalent to a VW Golf and a goldfish equates to two cellphones.....)

A boon to the dog world?

What will these humans think of next?

Apparently the New Scientist magazine* has been running a competition asking readers to describe a Wallace-and-Gromit style invention. This is one of the winners, deeply worrying in my view, from Ben Marshall: 

Dog-washing device

VR (virtual reality) goggles and a VO (virtual olfactory) mask are applied to a cooperative canine standing on the stationary Ezi-Treadmill. The solar-powered electronic device is switched on and the canine sees and smells a rabbit in a field. The dog gives chase, which moves the treadmill, powering the washing, cleaning and drying attachments, as well as pumping clean rainwater into the system, and expelling rinse water into a nearby orchard.

I am considering writing a letter to the editor pointing out that us dogs are simply NOT THAT STUPID. What kind kind of a self-respecting canine is going to 'cooperate' in this charade?

*I keep trying to persuade Gail to buy a proper dog paper, but she just won't, and the newsagent doesn't accept friendly licks as legal tender.

A question of snowballs

Perusing this week's copy of the New Scientist, I was pleased to note that this excellent magazine is finally turning its attention to some more relevant issues. 

I mean, who really cares about whether Large Hadrons are being successfully Collided and making Bosons which may or may not belong to a Mr Higgs ? 

No, it has taken an eleven year old human reader, one Alix Buttermore, to pose the question that concerns so many of us who live in colder climates. She asks why her small dog - see picture on left - gathers hard, icy "snowballs"on her chest and legs  when walking in the park in the snow. 

In the same section, another reader asks why dogs like jumping into cold ponds, while cats and humans generally do not. 

We shall have to wait a week or two for New Scientist's readers' responses to these two important questions. All I know is that those snowballs are most uncomfortable. Sometimes you get so many you can't walk any more. 

I'll keep you posted on the answers. (Perhaps readers of this blog have their own ideas. If so, you could write to lastword@newscientist.com).

PS The observant amongst you will note that I've had a haircut since Wednesday. I feel like a prematurely shorn sheep.....And I'm certainly not planning on jumping into a cold pond anytime soon.