From St. Thomas Dog Blog, Sept. 4, 2013. Reposted in honour of US Memorial Day and Harold Palmquist, a US veteran who is biking across the country with his dog to raise money for homeless vets and their pets.
Please God, I have never had to beg on the street and I’ve never been homeless. I don’t know how I’d look after myself, let alone a dog or cat. But people do; they survive on the streets of even the coldest cities, and many do so with a pet.
I have had to carefully parcel out funds so that rent was paid and my cat and I had something to eat. A student promotion credit card was our lifesaver, if a month’s supply of money ran out before the days did. The cat and I ate some odd meals – whatever I could find in the limited food section of Woolworth’s. Grocery stores did not accept credit cards then. Fortunately for us, those times were not frequent.
For some people and their animals, it’s a more regular occurrence. Today, on CBC Radio’s The Current (sorry, story no longer available), the stories of some people perhaps marginalized by society but not by their companion animals. James Bowen, whose cat helped him out as a busker and now as an author. As he said, thanks to Bob the cat, he now pays income tax. A woman whose cat keeps her off crack. A woman in Edmonton who started a pet food bank, with donation bins in pet stores and a system for getting the food to those who need it. And a University of Colorado sociologist who has talked to homeless pet owners and written a book called My Dog Always Eats First.
That book’s author, Dr. Leslie Irvine, talks about homelessness being a “master status” in our society. That means that it overrides all other statuses that a person holds. Those may be “ascribed” such as gender or ethnicity or “achieved” such as profession or educational level. Whether a holder of an advanced degree or a high school dropout, a person sleeping in a doorway is seen only as ‘homeless person’. And you’re not likely to even think to ask what else a panhandler is as you drop your change in his or her cup.
But there is another master status, I think, that people ascribe to themselves: that of “pet owner”. As one, I will go over and talk to a “homeless person” if he or she is accompanied by pet. I see the animal and want to make contact with him or her, and therefore the person as well. This is not to suggest that homeless people should get pets in order to improve their chances on the street.
Accommodating people and their service or pet animals has caused real problems for many shelters trying to be inclusive. Dog fights, fleas, provision for people with allergies and abandonment of animals in the shelter are some that I remember from a radio documentary I heard a few years ago (sorry, can’t find a link).
But for many of us, homeless and homed, our pets are solace and friendship, providing someone else for us to think about and care for. And every dog, cat or guinea pig living happily with their person on the street is one less unwanted animal needing rescue or dying from neglect.
Wednesday, Ken asked the question I’ve been asking myself about his storyline. “But to what end? It doesn’t make sense.” Ken was commenting on why Tracy would have hit him over the head. I was commenting on the whole storyline since its early days.
Ok, I can see having each of his children a suspect for a time. But my credulity has been strained, as has my patience. Too many people getting dragged into it – to what end? The whole plot has become too busy. So many people, so much sneaking around. It doesn’t make sense.
Bringing Rob back? In order for that to explain that, a whole off-screen story had to be told. And why? To put Tracy and Amy in a convoluted, and unbelievable, story that involved a nice location shoot.
Tracy suspected Amy of being the one who had hurt Ken. At the end of the episode, Rob voiced something else I’d been saying to my tv. “I just did what you should have at the start. I asked her if she was the one who hurt Ken. She said no.” That was in answer to Tracy’s question of how he knew that Amy hadn’t done it. Yes, Tracy, it can be that easy! That Tracy would volunteer herself for prison and let her father believe she’d harm him? Without asking Amy for sure? Not easy to believe.
Ken’s story started as an exciting whodunit. A large cast of suspects, goody, let’s all be Hercule Poirot! But then the circles started spinning off into new circles. You need a playbook to remember everybody involved and everybody’s story. Now I don’t care who they arrest, just let it end.
Manchester Stand Strong
In real life, the Manchester bombing also raises the question “But to what end?” Twenty-two people were killed and many more injured as they left a concert. One of those killed was Martyn Hett, a Coronation Street, and Deirdre, “super-fan”.
He has wonderful videos on YouTube. My favourite is his cooking lesson on making Deirdre’s Stuffed Marrow. Thank you for that, Martyn, and for the the “Audrey Roberts Noise”. My condolences to Martyn’s family and friends, and to all the victims of this tragedy. Like Ken said, “it doesn’t make sense.” And, as Manchester is saying, “stand strong.”
See my Aug. 2, 2015 post for stuffed marrow made by Robert Preston on the show and by Martyn Hett on YouTube.
I don’t think I’ve ever before seen CBC put a ‘viewer discretion’ advisory at the beginning of Coronation Street. They did Monday. And with reason. Bethany and Nathan. And Neil. All building up to the very end. The final shot.
Bethany, quietly crying, looking at the closed bedroom door. The door not opening. Nathan not coming through to save her, to throw his “friend” out. So she quietly submits to Neil. Submits to rape.
At the same time, in the Rovers, Mary and Norris discuss methods of parenting past and present. Because Sarah has told them she’s worried about Bethany. Sarah texts her, but Bethany doesn’t hear her phone. It’s in the living room at Nathan’s, while she is in the bedroom with Neil.
Norris has argued for taking a firm hand with children, teaching discipline and right from wrong. Mary counters that the old style often was not so good for the children themselves. And she does know the bad consequences. Norris knows that she knows. He says to Sarah, “What do I know? I’ve never had any children.”
But if Norris, Mary or Sarah knew what was happening at that very moment with Bethany, I think they’d all agree on the merits of the stick in the carrot and stick approach to childrearing.
The long inexorable lead-up to Bethany in that bedroom, being raped, was worthy of a viewer advisory. Even worse was that she thought she was doing the right thing. She thought this was what an adult, a girlfriend, should do. As frightened and disgusted as she is, this must be okay in grown-up land – so Nathan has convinced her.
Nathan and Mel are her benchmarks for what is cool adult behaviour. Sarah, Gary, the other adults in her family? They are old, they don’t understand. They think she’s a kid. But Nathan and Mel – they see her maturity, they don’t want to hold her back. At least that’s what she believes, what she wants.
Meanwhile, the other adults in Bethany’s life dither about how lightly to step on the eggshells. How to get her away from Nathan without alienating her. And while they fiddle, Bethany’s Rome burns.
This week in May 2010, we in the St. Thomas Dog Owners Association were doing a final spit and polish on our new Lions Club Dog Park.
The Lions Club Dog Park had its grand opening on the May 24th weekend – one day of rain, one day of beautiful sunshine. A pretty good time though, I thought.
I picked up some pointers on dog training from Anne MacDonald of K-9 Concepts Saturday afternoon. She gave a workshop on recall training, one of the hardest and most important things to teach.
My two are pretty good about coming when called, if they feel like it. And that, of course, is the problem. If they don’t feel like coming when called, it’s because they’re doing something way more interesting like chasing a rabbit or, in Leo’s case, eating poop – things I don’t want them doing. So your objective is to make coming to you a better option for them, and make them believe you have the power to make them come even if they don’t to.
The ‘carrot’ part of this is lots of good treats. Don’t be stingy, Anne said. Give them lots of the really yummy treats for a good recall. Many people, she said, give just the same amount of treat for a sit, a shake paw or a recall. With the recall, because it’s so important, give more and make a huge fuss over them for doing it well. I make a big fuss, but I just give the same small amount of treat that I do for anything else.
I worry about them gaining weight from too much “junk food” so only give them a teensy bit of dried liver or whatever as a treat. But I hadn’t thought about it from their perspective – why should I interrupt this interesting thing I’m doing for the sliver of treat she’s got. So now, lots of treats, different kinds of treats, lots of hugs and fuss. We’ll see how it works.
Be a slot machine
“Be a slot machine, not a vending machine,” Anne said about training. Sometimes they get a lot, sometimes they get a little, sometimes they get nothing – they never know for sure. So like people sitting for hours feeding coins into a slot machine, hoping against hope that it will give the big payoff, a dog will be more inclined to keep coming back in hopes of hitting a mother lode of treats.*
But don’t do it every time. If the dog knows you’re going to give a treat every time, after the first time you don’t, the dog might treat you like a broken vending machine. If it doesn’t produce, you don’t go back to it. When Leo knows I’ve run out of treats (which he seems to have a sixth sense about), he thinks about whether he’s going to come back or not. If he feels like it, he might but not with as much alacrity as when he knows there’s a treat waiting. If he doesn’t feel like it, well, he doesn’t until he’s ready.
The long leash
When they don’t feel like coming back, that’s when you need the “I am all-powerful” tool. Anne uses a long lead, a soft rope much longer than a regular leash. Just let the dog drag it (obviously not in brush areas where the dog can get caught up). Give the recall command, if dog doesn’t react, say it again and step on the leash. Don’t go to the dog, pull the leash back to you.
Keep the treats in your pocket, not your hand. But act fast when the dog comes back. “Good dog”, pats and hugs and quickquick into your pocket and treat to dog. That reinforces the connection between the dog’s action and the reward, but lessens the chance of the treat being a bribe instead of a reward. That’s where my training with Leo fell down. He saw the treat in my hand often enough that he started looking for it before he’d decide whether or not to do what I asked. With him, it’s not even a case of bribery, it’s more like negotiation. With Charlie too, it’s negotiation. If he knows I’ve got treats he really likes, he’s more likely to do what I ask. If he doesn’t like them, he just sniffs the treat and walks on past. So for recall especially, have ones they like a lot.
Sometimes they get into competition to see who can get to me faster. Anne says you can use that competitiveness in training, and reward only the winner. The dog who does it right gets the treats and the big fuss. The other gets nothing. I have a hard time doing that, the other one looks so pitiful that I end up giving him a treat and pat too. She says be tough so they see that if they don’t do the work, they don’t get the prize.
So I learned a lot, mainly how much I’ve let “pretty good” be good enough for me. As a result of my back-sliding, my very willing-to-learn poodle is only about halfway to well-trained and my smart but obstinate terrier pays attention and then does what he wants. Both of them like playing “the training game” as they see it. And both have learned a lot since we’ve had them. Now I’m going to do my part to help them learn more. Thank you, Anne, for some helpful tips and reminders.
First posted May 25, 2010 on the St. Thomas Dog Blog.
* On CBC’s The Current, Mon. May 15/17, Adam Alter, author of Irresistible: The rise of addictive technology and the business of keeping us hooked, said about social media likes: “This idea that a reward is just within reach but it’s never guaranteed. Paradoxically when you guarantee someone a reward, they get bored and they stop doing something quite quickly, whereas when you build in just a small dose of uncertainty… is very hard for humans to resist.”
All week I waited, worried. Where was David the dog? Finally, Friday, there he was trotting along with David the human.
I hope David the dog doesn’t just disappear with no explanation. He came with an explanation – and a big packet of cash. And aside from avoiding unexplained loose ends, David’s arrival brings up issues that should not be ignored.
A client of David’s, Mrs. Moss, died and, in her will, left her dog – named David as well – to him. She also left David £20,000. He was much happier about the cash than the dog. The two are inextricably connected. But I’m not sure David the human realizes that.
Mrs. Moss’s intention, I’m sure, was that the money would provide for the dog’s care and also be of help to his new carer. So a thank you and a way to ensure that David the dog is not a financial burden. But if she spelled that out in her will, it went right over David’s head. None of the Platts seem to have added two and two and realized that looking after David the dog is a trust agreed to by accepting the terms of the will – and the money.
Last week, after the dog escaped, Gail asked if it would be such a bad thing if he got lost! It reminded me of what my lawyer had said to me about including provisions for a pet, and care-taking money, in a will. Make sure there’s a system for accounting, otherwise it’s ‘whoops, cat’s dead, thanks for the cash!’, he said. Mrs. Moss should have talked to him, I think.
I don’t think that Coronation Street writers included the legacy of David the dog as an “issue story”, but it is. Pets are abandoned, taken to shelters or killed after their owners die (see my Pet Heirs). It happens even when people think they have made provision for their pets. That is what Mrs. Moss did, and I hope the Platts will not continue to be so cavalier in their attitude toward David the dog and his £20,000.
I think she cannot have known David or any of his family very well. Otherwise she would not have entrusted her beloved dog to him. But she did, and she rewarded him well for it. David has given the money away, but I hope he shows that he is aware of his continuing obligation to David the dog and to Mrs. Moss.
Dear readers, I need your help. I am looking for the parents of Genevieve Jane Duffenais or Duffney. She married George Hynes. They lived in the Gravels on the Port au Port Peninsula. They had several children, among them Elvina Julia Hynes (1870-1907). Elvina married William Thomas Gillam in 1899.
Genevieve Jane Duffenais chart
Who were Genevieve’s parents? Were they Jean (or John) Frederick Dauphinee (1791-1851) and Mary Anne LeJeune/Young (1794-1871)?
Some genealogies I’ve seen show them as having a daughter Genevieve, with no husband or children listed.
Others list two daughters, Genevieve Jane (born 1833, married George Hynes), and Genevieve (born 1843, no husband).
Some show Genevieve Jane Duffenais/Duffney as wife of George Hynes, but do not give her parents’ names.
One online family tree has John Frederick and Mary Anne has having daughters Jane (born 1833 married George Hynes) and Genevieve (born 1843, no husband shown).
Another tree(see #87) has John Frederick married twice. With first wife, Mary Anne Young, he had 4 children. He and second wife Rebecca Elizabeth Morash had 8 children, including Jane Duffenais (1833-1909, married George Haynes) and Genevieve (b 1843). But I saw that second wife only in that tree and I haven’t been able to learn anything more about Rebecca Elizabeth Morash.
Jane was often used as a short form of Genevieve, but it’s also a name in its own right. So you might have a Jane and a Genevieve in the same family. But it’s not likely that you’d give the same name to two children who both were alive.
I found out that Elvina Hynes and Thomas Gillam had a daughter named Elizabeth Louisa Alexandria. She moved to New Brunswick and has descendants here. I thought it would be fun to trace the family back in Newfoundland. That was when I saw the problem with Genevieve. So if anyone can help, I thank you very much.
Wednesday, Shona tells Gail her truth. She’s Clayton’s mother. Yes, the kid who killed Kylie. “Nobody sets out to raise a monster,” says Gail. Gee, thanks, that’ll make her feel better! A backhanded show of support if ever there’s been one.
Enough to raise an eyebrow, and Shona does. But she’s very gracious about it. She ignores the insult and just talks about trying to do your best for your kid and never imagining what might happen. Hoping things will get better, ignoring or making excuses for what is.
Meanwhile, Shona now knows about David’s attempt to kill Clayton. In an explosion that also would have killed the guards and other prisoners in the van and anyone who was near. She knows too that it took David a long time to plan and set it up. He didn’t do it only because other people realized something was up and stopped him. Raise a monster, eh? Gail might know a bit about that.
Shona doesn’t know that rest of David’s history, his attempts at killing some or all of his family. She certainly doesn’t know about Callum, not that she would likely mourn him but still. It takes a pretty steely heart to bury a body under your mother’s bed and carry on living in the house as if all is normal. Psychopath is one word, monster might fit too.
Gail doesn’t see the irony of her words, of course. In the long run, David can do no wrong in her eyes. Because that would reflect badly on her. You could see the flicker of realization in her eyes, though, when Shona said “a mother always feels responsible, don’t you.” Gail, I think, does feel responsible for a short time. But then she gets caught up with justifying her own and her children’s actions. So it was just a flicker.
So Gail and Shona have agreed to keep mum, as it were, in order to protect themselves vis a vis their sons. I won’t tell if you won’t tell. I think Shona has integrity. That’s the only hope there is in this unholy alliance of motherhood if – when – whatever hits the fan in this story that must have to do with the demise of Callum.
Devon Griffin wrote the following about Fortune Bay and the family of Elizabeth Saunders. He sent it as a comment on Newfoundland Mi’kmaq Family History. But with so much information that people are seeking, I asked if I could post it on its own. He kindly agreed and provided photos.
Martha Murphy Hynes
Martha Murphy’s parents were Walter Murphy & Bridget Ryan of Oderin and Little Harbour West, Placentia Bay. She had several siblings. (Martha married Joseph Hynes, son of Elizabeth Saunders and Thomas Hynes. After Martha’s death, Joseph married Mary Smith, daughter of John Smith and Elizabeth Vaters of Davis Island.)
Martha died on Feb 28 1884 in English Harbour East, and she’s buried in St. Bernard’s (The only RC cemetery on that side of Fortune Bay at the time) and her headstone still exists there.
I’m currently working on the Murphy family as it seems there was some Mi’kmaq blood in the family, but we are unsure how. They had some affiliation with native people in the Swift Current area in the early- to mid-1800s. If you look at Martha’s brother John Murphy’s daughters, they are very Mi’kmaq in appearance.
Smiths and Hacketts
Elizabeth (also known as Betsy) Smith Hackett’s parents were William Smith & Elizabeth Whittle. She married William Hackett. He died on May 17 1884 in English Harbour East according to Gertrude Crosbie’s transcription of NL Newspapers. Betsy’s sister Martha Smith married William Hackett’s brother, Thomas Hackett.
There also is some speculation about an early connection between the Hacketts and the Saunders. A Joseph Hackett was in Fortune Bay in 1818 according to the Keith Matthews collection at the Maritime History Archive. Dorothy, I’m not sure if you have seen it before but there was a Joseph Hackett in Labrador in the 1820s recorded as a half-Indian. Interesting the name shows up in both places.
Elizabeth Saunders Family
Also, more information on the Saunders. Elizabeth (Saunders) Hynes was indeed of Mi’kmaq origin. Her parents were John and Elizabeth Saunders, and were noted in court records for 1810/1811 as having saved a young servant girl Margaret Doyle from her master Michael Gorman. He was abusing her at Terrenceville (then known as Fortune Bay Bottom). They took her into their home and protected her from him.
DNA connection with Elizabeth Joe
We recently conducted a mtDNA test, which is your direct maternal line (your mother’s mother’s mother etc.), on John Saunders’ wife Elizabeth. We do not have a maiden name for her yet. The test came back and she shares a direct maternal line with Elizabeth (Joe) Blanchard of the Bay of Islands [wife of William Blanchard].
As many know, Elizabeth Joe was Mi’kmaq and has been speculated to be Thomas Joe’s daughter or some relation to him. It’s also believed Mary Park Brooks was Elizabeth (Joe) Blanchard’s sister and was Mi’kmaq. We’re working on getting an mtDNA test for a descendant of hers to prove that.
The mtDNA test showed that Elizabeth Saunders and Elizabeth (Joe) Blanchard share a direct maternal line with a genetic distance of 0. That means it’s very recent (within the last 200-250 years), so the most likely scenarios are that they were sisters, aunt and niece or first cousins on the maternal side.
It’s pretty interesting to be able to connect two women who were known to be Mi’kmaq. If Mary Park Brooks mtDNA test comes back as sharing a direct maternal line also, it provides a little proof to their connection as I believe in the 1838/1839 list of inhabitants it says she was from Burin originally and is also where Elizabeth Saunders frequented.
John and Elizabeth Saunders, Terrenceville
John & Elizabeth Saunders had the following children: Elizabeth Saunders (m. Thomas Hynes), Richard (Dickie) Saunders (m. Joanna Clarke), Catherine Saunders (m. James Picco), Ann Saunders (m. Esau Rhymes), George Saunders (m. (1) Ann Unknown (2) Ann Baker), Jane Saunders (m. Timothy McCarthy), & Joseph Saunders (m. Mary Jane Myles). There could possibly be more, but that’s what has been confirmed over the years.
The area of Terrenceville in Fortune Bay was highly frequented by the Mi’kmaq up until the mid-1870s (the story of why they stopped travelling there is a whole few paragraphs of its own). The Saunders and their descendants ended up staying there and settling.
Lavhey family, Terrenceville
Another prominent Mi’kmaq woman who stayed in Terrenceville was Elizabeth, married to Lewis Lavhey. Apparently she was a Bernard originally. Their descendants, especially through their daughter Grace (m. Samuel Coombs), live on in the area.
Picco family and ships
The Piccos were also a very frequent Mi’kmaq family in the area and as you can see one of them (James Picco) married Catherine Saunders. They have been in the area of Fortune Bay for hundreds of years. Apparently the matriarch of that family died in 1844 (according to a family history story published in the 1960s) over a hundred years old and was a great great great grandmother. By that point, she lived in St. Joseph’s, Placentia Bay (then known as Gallow’s Harbour).
I have heard rumours and old family history that the Mi’kmaq Picco (often spelled Peaco or Pico) originally came from Nova Scotia. Dr. Leslie Harris, former president of MUN, stated in his book ‘Growing up with Verse’ that James Picco & Catherine Saunders’ son John Picco had Mi’kmaq blood, and that it was often talked about. The Piccos are a large family, but there haven’t been a lot of records concerning them. Seems James & Catherine lived in Fortune Bay at one point before moving to St. Joseph’s, and their son John was born there in 1841 according to his death record & Leslie Harris’ book.
There are lots of ships registered for the Piccos from Fortune Bay. Behind English Harbour East (home of Elizabeth Saunders Hynes) there is also a place called Piccos Woods. I have recorded a Phillip Picco, Joseph Picco etc. trading with Newman and Co. in the 1790s out of Little Bay & Harbour Breton. As it’s known, natives typically moved around a lot for different reasons. The Piccos were no different, going between Bay d’Espoir, Fortune Bay and Placentia Bay.
Louis John and family also frequented the Long Harbour, Fortune Bay and Terrenceville areas, Peter John (his son) was born in Belleoram around the 1810s and one of the John men was a telegraph operator in Terrenceville.
Lots of more information if anyone is interested. I could go on forever. Still lots to figure out but we’ve definitely made some progress over the past few years putting things together. Hopefully someday we’ll map out all the Mi’kmaq of Fortune and Placentia Bays. DNA is a welcome assistant to our research and we encourage everyone to get a DNA test to find your cousins!
Newfoundland Mi'kmaq, family history, Coronation Street, etc.