Leonard „Buzz“ CecilMay 22, 2014

The Pet Professional Guild and Me

All rights reserved, © May 22nd 2014, Ettingen, SwitzerlandNo parts of this document may be used in any other form or publication, nor may it be altered in any way. It may be however freely distributed by

individuals to individuals under the condition, that it not be altered or published in any commercial media, neither print nor digital.

The Pet Professional Guild and Me (Part 1)

The BeginningQuite frankly, I don't know exactly how or why I got involved with the PPG. I believe I was recommended for membership. Looking through my records I only found an Email from Ms. Niki Tudge (NT) saying that my membership had been approved. I got this email on January 19, 2012. There was no mention of becoming a member of the Steering Committee. But on the 26 th of January 2012 it seems to have been the case – I was in the Steering Committee, inasmuch as she sent me a text “The role of The Pet Professional Guild Steering Committee” dated January 23 rd , 2012 to look over and make comments on. Interestingly, already then I made a suggestion to change one paragraph so that it read.

“Concerns about point 2-F - this is a point that this is a point found on a lot of organizations, one that's jumped out at me for example on the IACP code. I think we have to -very- careful about this, inasmuch as this does limit one's right to free expression. I think that criticism of others' techniques needs to be allowed as long as the criticism is of a factual nature concern the actual techniques used, not however of a personal attack nature or even questioning the motives. Anything that entails criticism of the ethics of another trainer can be construed as personal. As an example, While I feel it's ok to question the necessity of using force in training, I do not feel it's ok to accuse the person using force of being of inferior moral character (even if that is very often the case. Professionals criticize each other all the time. They exercise critic on the quality of the work with explicit, specific examples. the do not criticize a persons motives, intelligence, likes or dislikes. (Emphasis L.C.)I think we should be able to exercise critique on working methods in a factual, impersonal basis, but not as a means to personally attack the trainer using them. Not being able to do so would severely limit ones ability to engage in a dialog with just such people, and actually isolates ourselves to a potentially professionally mutual admiration society instead of an evangelical one in the Guy Kawasaki sense of the word. So I think this needs to be reworded.” 1

I do remember speaking with NT about my role in the Steering Committee, but have no document from this explicit time period. I was on board if:

1) The Pet Professional Guild (PPG) was to be a truly international Force Free organization for all trainers and professionals from all over the world, meaning the organization would reflect the situations of all, not just North America, also involving people from all over the world in the planning and execution of the building up of the organization. This was to be my chief responsibility, to oversee this.

2) The US APDT had dropped the ball concerning being -the- trainers' organization where people could go, to find a Force Free (FF) trainer, inasmuch as 10% of their membership use non-FF tools and techniques. The PPG would set up a system of screening members for using only FF methods and setting up a dependable Ethics Committee process to take care of any people who should sneak in past the membership process.

3) And of course, as witnessed by the paragraphs above, to ensure, that all members deal with each other, their clients and animals in a professional manner and what that manner is.

4) The emphasis will also be on education for both trainers and the public.5) And much more.

On January 27, 2012 I was officially included in the SC through my signature on the document “The Role of the Pet Professional Guild Steering Committee” after receiving the assurances from NT, that my concerns would be met.

1 I will only quote my own documents, not those of others. I will however provide PDFs of mentioned documents written by others but distributed, if absolutely necessary.

NT issued an email on January 26 listing the following people as members of the SC:“The Pet Professional Guild Steering Committee is – Drum Roll please Angelica Steinker - <facebook URL> Anne Springer - <facebook URL> Leah Roberts - <facebook URL> Diane Garrod - <facebook URL> Catherine Zehner - <facebook URL> Niki Tudge - <facebook URL>2”

I was not yet included, because this had been sent out the day before I'd returned my signed document. Mr. Chad Byerly of PosiDog inclusion in the SC was announced per email on January 28 th, 2012 Before we even got together for the first Steering Committee meeting, per telephone, the Steering Committee (SC), Mr. Byerly resigned per email as a Steering Committee member on February 3, 2012 due to potential problems with a conflict of appearance vs structure of the PPG being set up as a non-profit as opposed to a for-profit organization. This caused a fairly large stir. On February 6th, 2012, on the same day as the very first SC meeting, we all were sent the graphic indicating, that we were “Founding Members”:

As a result of this first Steering Committee meeting, I was charged with setting up an international members' Facebook page. This was supposed to be a first kind of action committee as well as a place to discuss needs and wants of “international members”. And my first main agreed upon duty was to be liaison between these members and the SC. This Facebook page was set up on February 12 th 2012.I was also charged with contacting James O'Heare, asking if I could post an announcement of the starting up of the PPG in his CASI Yahoo group. Niki had told me, that she'd already informed James of the PPG. His response to me on February 15 th 2012 was “I don't believe I have heard anything about any of this.” which was puzzling to me, so I proceeded to explain what PPG and recommending he speak with NT and Angelica Steinker (ASS). I then invited him to join us.Starting on February 19th 2012, NT and I drafted the written membership application form, based upon the same from Pet Dog Trainers of Europe (PDTE) organization, of which I was also a member.On February 20th 2012, NT sent us all a list of the PPP Founding Members, in other words, the first 50 members. Since this list was not alphabetically arranged, it listed me as the 5 th member. This list was published in the first email newsletter and on the PPG website – until recently. I have no idea why it is no longer published. I do know of 4 people in the list who are no longer members – 3 of whom resigned.On February 21st 2012, NT made the decision in the case of a PPG member, that it wasn't possible to be a member both of the PPG and IACB – they were not compatible with each other. This was the first instance of excluding members of another organization because of association.The first draft of the first “Barks Form The Guild” was distributed on March 1 st, 2012. There was a multilingual greeting put together by members of the Facebook International Group. The rest was only in English.And on March 4th, 2012 NT sent us all the first draft of the process that would be used for ethics complaints, then called “Procedures for Handling Membership Complaints.”. The reasons for this being, that we'd received on February 13th, 2012 our very first test of the Ethics Complaint procedure that hadn't really been set up yet, as a complaint was received about a particular Spanish trainer who'd been accepted as a member, but who allegedly was not a Force Free trainer.

2 I am not including the actual Facebook links.

From this point on, I was mainly investigating new “foreign” (= non US, later non US/Canada) membership applications. I started a translation group which at first did the translations of some of the handouts and articles for the “Barks....” themselves. Then some were able to find helpers to delegate this to. I encouraged these people to also look for interesting articles from non US/Canadian trainers and we got mostly Germans publishing.Another duty I had as SC member was as a member of the newly formed Ethics Committee. On March 20 th

2012 concerning our second complaint – and there were some concerns having to do with conforming to the published protocol on the PPG webpage.March 21st 2012 was a big day for the PPG. Caryn Charlie Liles announced to the members of her IAFPP, that that organization was being folded into the PPG. Our numbers were exploding.

We're Rolling NowStarting the end of March 2012, the international group was charged with translating some of the PPG handouts. I was enthusiastic about these being translated into various languages, but at the same time a little disturbed, that no non-US/Canadian trainers were involved in creating them. And on May 1 st, 2012 We got a letter having mainly to do with different terminology and expectations of training and training styles outside of the US/Canada for which the main position of the PPG at that point was, that these people should be allowed to be members, but needed to be educated. In other words, ethically they were Force Free, but there was some conflict in how they disseminated information to clients. On the 5th of May 2012 we members of the SC were surprised by NT with an email containing the following certificate – I don't really know what this means:

Later in time, when I'd left the SC and membership fees were charged, I contacted NT to ask about this. Did this mean, that I would not have to pay membership fees? No, she too had paid membership fees. Does that mean, that I'm a now a member for the rest of my life and therefore libel to pay membership fees, even if I decide to quit the PPG? She didn't answer that question. So I still do not know what this means.The first two PPG free member Webinars were translated into German and Dutch. This was a tremendous effort for non-professional translators and transcribers. I did the technical work, integrating the translated text into the existing film and then posting these on my YouTube channel. PPG multi-media services were born, so to speak. This all happened the end of April, beginning of May 2012.On May 13th, 2012, NT sent an email to all SC members, basically telling them that postings on social media (like Facebook) reflect on the PPG itself. The content was basically saying that we as SC members had to set a good example in our interactions with people and follow our own Guiding Principles - obvious some SC members were not doing that.Towards the end of May, 2012, I determined, that working with a large international group in Facebook to get the non-US/Canada members represented was not working. Calls for help were not being heeded. So I was given permission to form an International Workgroup. We were also given a Forum on the PPG website. The most important task would be to get translations done. We were not involved directly however in creating the documents we were translating and some people were not always entirely in agreement with what they were translating.

On May 25th, 2012 we members of the Ethics Committee (NT, Diane Garrod and I) got a PDF with 5 cases outlined. One of the cases concerning Kat Webber (spelled incorrectly, it is Katharine Weber) KW was pretty clear. She slandered people by publicizing on her Facebook business page that they were shock trainers – and it turned out, that one did not use any shock at all. She was also blocking people with whom she did not agree concerning training methods. She was charged with a violation of Rule Nr. 8 of the Guiding Principles and found guilty, NT had her take down references to the PPG and these peoples' names.The above was bad enough, but the fourth & fifth cases were brought against two SC members, Leah Roberts and Anne Springer – very likely the reason for the afore mentioned email from May 13 th 2012. They were both accused of making personal judgements, for example “Well, this shows your ignorance about what reinforcement is,...” The fifth complaint was brought by the owner of a Facebook group who had been attacked by both Ms. Springer and Ms. Roberts. She sent in a supporting letter from a friend who said she would not join the PPG because of the actions of these 2 SC members. Let's skip for a minute to October 2012 in a complaint from a PPG member AB 3 against the same 2 SC members, also supported with screen shots of their abuse of other group members. We of the Ethics Committee agreed, that these two people would need to leave the Steering Committee – it was simply not the type of image we needed of the PPG and it's Steering Committee. NT said she would talk to the two. This was in effect the second offense of the same kind for these two SC members. She asked if we were in agreement and we were.In the end, Ms. Springer was reprimanded (?!?) and Ms. Roberts was excluded from the Steering Committee, but was instead set in charge of developing a kind of local PPG organization in Central Florida. I cannot speak for Ms. Garrod, but I was rather shocked, but this is NT's organization, she's founder, financier and president. At the end of the day, if she decides to do something, she does. BTW – along those lines, she's formulated and installed structures that make it impossible to vote her out of office or out of the PPG. Just saying.Some other highlights of my time in the Steering Committee:

1) Nando Brown in Spain was working at a radio station with his own program dedicated to Force Free training. He and I came up with the idea to dedicate a segment of his show to the PPG – we started this already in March 2012. I was interviewed a total of 4 times. I recorded them all and placed them at first on my YouTube channel. They are now on the PPG channel.

2) Claudia Estanislau came up with an idea in London and Nando started to realize it in February 2013. “I don't need to be a pack leader”. He let several trainers gathered together at the 2013 WOOF conference in London introduce themselves and say that sentence. This grew into a poster movement that went around the world. I took over this poster project and contacted two trainers' organizations in Germany and one in Canada to help out, getting their members to take part. All filled out a form with photos and sent them in. I made a webpage ( http://www.auf-den-hund-gekommen.net/-/Pack_Leader.html ) and a film ( https://vimeo.com/64630527 ) of these posters.

3) I was part of the committee to get the The Pet Professional Guild World Services started, again with Nando Brown. The idea was, to begin small with a dedicated broadcast in a set format, attract attention of the media (like Zak George), get some kind of cable TV interested and set up a “real man” image doing Force Free training as a counter to the present TV dog trainers. This was actually the next logical step after the radio PPG interviews.

4) I made sure, that as many non-US/Canada trainers were published in the “Barks From The Guild” as possible and that these were translated into as many language as possible. There were as many as 2 different articles from non-US/Canada in these issues. This was all part of my condition for taking part in the PPG as a Steering Committee member – that non-US/Canada trainers not only consume, but also contribute.

5) Again Claudia Estanislau had the idea to spotlight at a specific interval, either months or even weekly a PPG Trainer of the Week (Month). NT worked up a way to connect a script to the PPG member database and we started taking “applications”. I would check the application to make sure they were correctly filled out and then published these on the PPG website.

6) I was now responsible for taking care of all non-US/Canada membership applications, which meant either checking them out and approving them or scheduling interviews to see if they really were PPG

3 Complainant known to the author, but doesn't want her name made public.

material.7) I suggested and implemented an outreach program to non-US/Canada trainers' organizations, which

we called the PPG Strategic Alliance. This was meant as a way to establish contact with like-thinking people in other countries. If necessary we could support their Force Free efforts in their country and they the same with the PPG. These included:1. Internationaler Berufsverband für HundetrainerInnnen e.V. (Germany)2. Verband der Tierpsychologen & Tiertrainer e.V., (Germany, Switzerland)3. Antikdoggenfreunde (Germany)4. Dogaware (Switzerland)5. Trainieren statt dominieren (Germany)

But not all was well as far as I was concerned. 1) For each “Barks From the Guild” we had enough contributors, mostly German in origin, but there

was a growing problem with these articles etc. not being in English. There were voices within the SC, including NT who felt that this IS a US centered group and that the idea of having the translations within the published PDF was not necessary. The main idea was to have the English translation in the PDF with links to the individual non-English versions stored on the web server – ie unavailable without internet connection. I was able to at least get the original language version in the PDF, but in one edition, although I pointed this out BEFORE it was distributed, none of the links to the other non-English versions worked, nothing was done to correct this. It would be purely speculative on my part to give a concrete reason why this was the case.

2) While I did round up enough articles from non-US/Canada trainers to put at least one such article in each edition of “Barks From the Guild”, I was running out of ideas and contacts to continue this. I'd hoped, that people would come forward on their own. But this wasn't the case. I was the person who investigated the organizations, contacted them and made the drafts of the official contact letters. Our SC members should get free membership with them and they would get free membership with the PPG. I just heard from one group, that their president got a bill for the PPG membership fees. I was assured this wouldn't happen.

3) There was a general disinterest by the SC for what was going on with the non-US/Canada people. And while it wasn't always easy, I felt there was no real attempt to integrate them. Even the word “integrate” shows that they were never equal members. When looking for people to be members of the project work groups, these were set up, pretty much with people already known to the head of the group. When I asked about having non-US/Canada members also involved, the answer was either “When we've got out project done, we can have such people translate” or “Our group is set and we don't have room for any more people”. For US/Canada readers, this may not be so bad, but imagine if such a group were centered in another country and created their entire trainers' documentation in a language you can't understand and your clients can't understand for training situations that don't reflect how dogs are trained in your country. How motivated would you to participate as a (paying) member?

4) No mention of non-US/Canada events (and no real efforts to get the information) or trainers in the monthly email newsletter. And all in English – no other languages.

5) The first contact people have with the PPG is often the PPG's website. I pleaded, begged to get at least the most important pages translated into the “most important” languages as represented by our members. But we had no money. So we had to look for cheap solutions. Google-translate for example was horrible. “Force Free” translated in German to “Powerless”. Most of the other cheap possibilities were also not satisfactory. You get what you pay for. A professional organization has to have a professional “face” to the world. The IBH (Germany) has their web site in German – of course – but also in English. But this just wasn't possible for the PPG. We have no money. But when we have money, that will be one of the first priorities. I was told. How should a French person find a French Force Free trainer on the PPG website, if he/she doesn't speak English? Google-Translate was installed onto the old PPG website after I left the SC, but now everything with the new PPG website is in English – not even Google Translate. So only English speakers can interact with it. This is not international.

6) During a SC planning session for 2014, we were to make suggestions for a membership fee

schedule. I suggested a relative low fee, but with a marked reduction for non-US/Canada members, this because of the language problems. OR at least a notification that membership in the PPG was dependent upon reading knowledge of English. Why? The follow services that are available to English speakers are NOT available to non-English speakers outside of the US:1. Insurance outside of US/Canada – not available and very little effort made, neither during my

time in the SC nor since, to find a solution. Just simply not available. I still get questions about this.

2. Access to a minimum of one FREE educational webcast each month – access yes, but useless if you don't speak English.

3. Continued Educational Units via our discounted webinars – generally speaking useless outside of the US/Canada.

4. Discounted educational programs via third party providers – none offered for non-English speakers.

5. Discounted pricing on print materials, marketing collateral and sales aids. Only in English6. “Barks From The Guild” - only articles worked on by the International WG were translated, the

entire rest of the magazine was in English only.7. Public relations and news releases. English only.8. PPG branded client handouts – not all were translated (and none since I left the SC). And only

reflecting the dog-culture of North America9. Marketing Tools and handouts. English only.10. Networking in our PPG Facebook Group – NT asked that the International PPG Member group

be disbanded, as it would conflict with the main member group (after I'd left the SC. I re-functioned it into a PPG non-affiliated group for international trainers when Eric Brad asked me to – he's since left the group.)

11. Provisional Member mentoring in our PPG Mentoring Zone on Facebook. Although I may be mistaken, I will guess, that this is probably only for English speakers.

12. Affiliation with Animal Wellness MagazineThis is 12 of 21 services that are supposed to be presently (May 2014) offered. Of course, the PPG Interviews Nando did were English-only as is the The Pet Professional Guild World Services. Even if your business is registered in the PPG Force Free Trainers database, a potential customer must speak English to find you there.

I had the growing feeling that because of the above and other things, my continual harping about Non-English this and Non-English that was getting on everyone's nerves. In a telephone call with NT, she made it abundantly clear, that as long as the PPG was headquartered and based in the US, the US/Canada would be the main priority. This was, as far as I was concerned, a break in our agreement from January 2012. I felt, that I was left with no other choice than to resign from the Steering Committee. So I did so on May 4 th 2013.

Adieu PPG (Part 2)As soon as I left the Steering Committee it was strange. I had been in weekly, sometimes daily contact with the SC members, getting things done, trading quips, etc. And now – I'd become invisible. But ok, I wasn't sitting in my office crying over the loss. I had other things to do. One of the things I had to do was try to answer the question: „Buzz, is it true you left the Steering Committee of the PPG because...“ And the stuff I had to hear, yet at the time could not actually reply to. But I'll get back to this. This was tricky at the time – I didn't want to put either the PPG or the SC in a bad light, yet there had to be reasons given, why I was no longer in the SC. Among other things, I attended Grisha Stewart's BAT Instructors' Course in Schwäbisch Hall, Germany in Spring 2013. Now whatever you might think about BAT, you can make decisions based upon what is and not what you think it is OR based upon outdated material or actually no material or use actual usage. And yes, other methods existing today have gone through periods of research, optimization until they've reached their present forms. Here I do want to be clear:

1) I used BAT from about 2010 to towards the end of 2012. Then I stopped for several reasons, mostly that I found some compatible techniques which I thought were better. Not that I found BAT to be bad, but better is better.

2) Grisha and I were in contact the whole time, trading ideas, checking things out on both sides, getting and giving information. She knew I was not using BAT and had no problems with it at all.

3) Grisha knew I was not using BAT when I attended the Instructors' Course, yet had no problems answering my questions. What I got out of this was, an even deeper understanding as to what BAT was doing, why and even why „my“ own program was better suited for me. In fact, in theory, BAT and mine were very similar, but the differences were more in the mechanics.

Now there had almost always been a very small but vocal group of people dead set against BAT. None of these people had actually been to a seminar. A couple had read the book, yet often „quoted“ the book either incorrectly or at best, out of context – in the last few months, while knowing that there is a new very and railing against the necessity for a new version, still quoting the old one. In fact, with the help of Ms. Lynn Honeckman, I'd paid for an auditor spot at Grisha's 2 day Seminar in Central Florida for someone from this group, but this offer of an auditor's spot was turned down with „I know all I need to know about BAT. I don't have to go to a shock seminar to know why I don't use shock.“ Wow, just wow. Let's not forget, that Grisha is a PPG member. How is that for professional respect toward our colleagues? But we'll see later, why this is not an Ethics violation. And why the continually appearing comparison with shock collar trainers? Be that as it may, I'm not going to explain the sides and present a pro-BAT side. Personally, and especially because I don't use BAT, I really don't care if someone uses it or not. And I'm very willing to discuss it's use or non-use. I'm not willing to argue about it. As time went on, it became clear, that my former friends on the SC wanted nothing to do with me. I figured they thought I'd left the fold for whatever reason and now was no longer part of the Force Free community. I never ever heard an explanation as to why. Emails and Facebook contacts were left unanswered or with curt one-sentence replies. Already months before I'd left the Steering Committee I'd been getting occasional request from Facebook friends, if there wasn't something that could be done about this or that member of the SC who was acting rude and/or abusive. This was happening mostly on Facebook groups I'd left either a long time ago or recently because I didn't feel it appropriate to tempt my hot-blooded self by being a member and taking part in the free-for-alls I knew took place there. So having been a part of

the Ethics Committee and knowing it worked fairly well, I always recommended they start an ethics complaint if they felt it warranted it. I couldn't and shouldn't judge how the committee would react, but there are rules, the Guiding Principles.In the meantime, I was going through my own little metamorphosis. I've been living in Switzerland since 1977. I'm married to a Swiss lady and have 2 kids born here in Switzerland. I'd always been critical of the American government from the time I was an anti-Vietnam War demonstrator, member of the SDS, hippie and Yippie. In 2004 I became a Swiss citizen, a proud son of the Emmental (via my wife who didn't even know she was an Emmentaler until I went to become Swiss). So for various reasons, I renounced my American citizenship in June 2013. This did not stop me from making critical political comments on my Facebook timeline. At some point, Ms. Anne Springer came onto my timeline and the accusations started flying – this ended in her “blocking” me, which means, I cannot see anything she posts anywhere, but she also cannot see anything I post anywhere – EXCEPT in groups where she is an administrator.A couple of months later, I got into a discussion on Yvette Van Veen's (good friend of Anne Springer and Kim Pike) timeline about BAT and negative reinforcement. It was clear, that these people were against BAT and negative reinforcement with heart and soul. But also against BAT's developer Grisha Stewart, making very hurtful comments about her knowledge, abilities, methods. Grisha even took part but left when it just made things worse. It was during this “discussion” that Kim Pike blocked me. After she'd admitted, that she'd not seen BAT being done, had only read parts of the book and had not been to a seminar about it, I made the comment that criticizing BAT without any real training or experience and commenting on Grisha's alleged incompetencies was like a Catholic priest giving Sex-Ed classes. Now I didn't say she was either a priest, nor that she gave Sex-Ed classes. But she didn't like being on the receiving end of such an analogy after having gone after Grisha's competencies directly. But that is her given reason. Just to be clear and open. It was during this discussion, that I mentioned a lecture on YouTube given by neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux, PhD, at the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden1. In it he talked about lab experiments he'd done on rats using both respondent and operant conditioning and that the rats trained using operant conditioning experienced no Return of Fear whereas those trained with respondent conditioning had a Return of Fear rate of 50%. This set me thinking and I ended up writing my so-called and much mentioned, if not by it's actual name/author “Literature Review” which I published and distributed as best I could on December 19, 2013. This “literature review” started a veritable “shit storm”. I started getting getting private messages from all sorts of Facebook friends “Do you know what Anne Springer...?” “Do you know what Yvette van Veen...?” “Do you know what Kim Pike...?”. And these people sent me PDFs and screen shots of conversations in which they derided it – never for content, but only for form. Fair enough, but I'd written, that I'm no scientist, so the form will not be “conform” but rather “informal”. I never once read a single actual sourced critic from anyone about the review. In fact, I'd had several scientists read it and give suggestions how to improve it in terms of “format”, also to let me know if there was any faulty science or logic in it. None given from any of them. Important note: Up to the time I'd had the discussion on Ms. Van Veen's timeline (see above) no one had ever mentioned the term “Return of Fear”. It is not found as a term in the dog training literature, although the principal was first mentioned by Pavlov2 in 1927 and the term was coined in 19793. Thhis was the term that I mentioned for the first in a discuss. That discussion WAS however the catalyst for me looking up the term and consequently tracing it's development from Pavlov through today. This was also the term that that played a large role in my “Literature Review” from December 19, 2013. What does all this have to do with the PPG and me leaving? I'm getting to that.

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_IIgXWdF-w2 “CONDITIONED REFLEXES: AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PHYSIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY OF THE CEREBRAL CORTEX”, Oxford University Press, 1927

3 Stanley Rachman, The Return of Fear, (1979), Behav. Res. & therapy, Vol 17, pp 164-165

These three ladies, sometimes accompanied by Katharine Weber (see ethics complaint mentioned in part one) or Eileen Anderson, would show up in any thread that mentioned BAT anywhere where they were members or administrators or elsewhere. And not just by chance. They would come in as a team. The form was usually that Anne would start and Kim would come in with “Well put, Anne...” and go on. And then Yvette might take over. - or any combination of the group. Usually it had the effect, that they would zero in on one particular person, either by name or not, accuse this person of lacking knowledge (that anyone should have learned in Freshman Psychology 101), experience, ability or morals/ethics, shaming the person into either quitting the discussion or leaving the group. Often a comment would come from Ms. Springer “I see no point in discussing this with you until you've learned at least the basics of Learning Theory...”People were sending me screen shots of these attacks and asking if I couldn't do SOMETHING, being as I was on the SC of the PPG. I had to tell them that I was no longer on the SC, but no one was really ready to start an ethics complaint. At the same time I was being not only kicked out of Facebook groups in which Ms. Springer, Ms. Pike, Ms. Van Veen were administrators, but I was banned, which means that in so-called open groups, such as “Beyond Cesar Millan” I cannot even read the postings. More about this later.Then I read, that Jean Donaldson, head the her own Academy and mentor to Ms. Springer, Ms. Pike, Ms. Van Veen, Ms. Anderson, would be taking questions in the Group Modern Dog Training and Behavior Advice. This took place on December 8, 2013, between the discussion on Ms. Van Veen's timeline and the publication of my “review”. In this Q&A session, Ms. Van Veen asked

“What strategies do you use to reduce the resurgence of fear during/after DS/CC? Obviously rehab isn't a straight line of progress, wondering if you take steps to reduce the recovery of fear. (Seems to be a buzz topic lately, so would like to hear your thoughts.)”

to which Ms. Donaldson wrote.“Yvette, it's tough to answer that one, as it's not commonly an issue. If DS/CC is done competently, there *is* no resurgence. (Kind of like asking, "What do you do about the dog turning into a kiwi?" "Uhhhhhh, well we, uhhh...wait, what?")” (emphasis L.C.)

Many, many people in many, many discussions had said, that they'd done DS/CC4 with their dogs or clients' dogs and for one reason or another it had not worked or not worked to their satisfaction, so that they'd used other methods. But reading this statement, one has to understand, that if done competently, the fear that elicits the unwanted behavior does not come back, so that no unwanted behavior is evident. If however, fear does come back, the trainer or the owner has done it incompetently, and no competent trainer or owner ever does incompetent work. I have seldom witnessed such an obtuse but brutal attack on colleagues and clients as this statement. At this point, I'd like to quote from the PPG Guiding Principles:

“8. Ensure all communications are professional and based in fact. When discussing industry practices, trends or issues, members will limit discussion to practices and consequences rather than the individuals using them thereby ensuring informed, professional and civil exchanges that enrich members and the industry of force-free pet professionals.”

There is no way this is limited to practices and consequences, rather extending through implication to individuals using them...”. This is a judgement of the “competencies” of people using a technique.

4 DS/CC = systematic desensitization and counterconditioning

The Ethics Committee Complaint(s)I would say, that the whole story of the Ethics Committee and certain members of the SC started already at the very beginning of the PPG with complaints first against Katharine Weber and also Anne Springer and Leah Roberts, which resulted in a message to the SC members and a tweaking of the Guiding Principles on March 25, 2012 – see Part 1. And continued in October 2012 with a complaint once again against Anne Springer and Leah Roberts which resulted in Anne Springer being reprimanded and Leah Roberts being excluded from the SC. Unfortunately this did not end the situation with these three. On September 16th 2013 in an email5 to Niki Tudge (NT), president and owner of PPG, I wrote and included screen shots of the “discussions”:

“Hello. No, I'm not going to start a process against her (Anne Springer), but I did want to let you know, that I'd unfriended Anne months ago after a series of personal attacks, the same ones she uses on so many others - people who use other methods than D&CC do so because they are too incompetent to do a proper D&CC. Typical fare and par for the course.Well, she's been at it again and she crossed that 1.37 millimeters I'd mention in a status post a couple of days ago. … I've run into several people who've done the same thing for the same reasons - it's up to you to determine if this is again becoming a problem, but we went through this once. “

to which NT answered the same day.“TksNiki”

Which was not very helpful.On February 1st 2014, I sent NT the following Email:“Dear Niki,Myself and others have been attacked in our person, professional abilities, professional knowledge, business practices and ethics in public byAnne SpringerKim PikeYvette van VeenKatharine WeberIf the following attached files do not constitute enough to initiate an ethics investigation of these individuals, I think you should at least be aware of the following, that I have documented such personal and professional attacks and will continue to do so. Thank you for your consideration.”

and included PDFs as examplesSo it's evident, that I am following a chain of command, not wanting to start a process which could have had uncomfortable consequences for the people involved without first trying to inform the only person who can exercise enough authority to reign them in. Instead of actually doing something about these aggressive displays against other fellow Force Free trainers, NT went into her own defense-mode, because I'd mentioned her name in the thread. I assume she did not want to be associated in any way to having not been against BAT. Personally – we did not talk as SC members at the time but rather as fellow trainers. It was clear with this email exchange, that she was going into personal damage-control mode:

5 All such emails have been saved in either .rtf or pdf format and can be made available if the need to should arise.

LC 1 st February 2014 17:51 “OK, if it’s inaccurate I apologize. It was what I had remembered from those discussions. Not for or against, just not well enough informed so you didn’t use it. In the meantime, I’d been informed from others, that you had now come out against it. If that is not true, then I apologize”NT 1 st February 2014 17:56 ”Thanks Buzz, it is absolutely not true and you will not find any evidence to support it. Please do not take second hand information to be true, if you want something clarified simply ask by email” (emphasis LC)

One of the reasons it would not be possible to find evidence was, that the 4 people mentioned had started deleting questionable posting. This became evident, in that in later postings summaries of now missing posts or even quoted bits would be in threads, where the original was no longer to be found. On February 8th 2014 I sent another email to NT:

“Here’s another I just got from Rise - she sent it to me, because both Kim and Anne have blocked me, so I can’t see their posts and they not mine. As you can see, there are indirect attacks on anyone who does not agree with them as incompetent and we all know who this is aimed at. Let’s do it this way, I’ll just keep sending these until you find that it’s reached a point where an ethics complaint is justified. Let me know, I’ll file formally and you’ll already have the screenshots. “

Ms. Springers comments about people's lack of abilities (incompetence is the word she used) being why they go to the “next “Revolutionary” protocol” is not just a discussion about methods. It's a direct attack on the peoples' abilities who use them and therefore on the people themselves. And of course unwarranted and without any proof whatsoever. But I believe NT as president had already pronounced the verdict of any complaint brought about such attacks. As we will see later – a verdict pronounced on the 8th of February 2013.On February 9th I sent NT another email quoting an email complaint about the behavior of Kim Pike (KP)

“Granted, one can agree to disagree, but when the professional competence is publicly questioned, of anyone not agreeing, then IMO, that line has been crossed. The list of people being alienated from the PPG by these people is growing. Now Rise is one of them. Here’s a taste from pm’s with me on the subject:

Rise: "As is often the case, her heart is in the right place, but her style of dealing with people can be quite caustic - far more so than in the group today. That was actually fairly mild.Kim has been following her around and echoing everything she says. Mini-me syndrome...I definitely found it offensive because I was careful not to single her out. And then she twisted my comments into the kumbaya bits, which is really quite nasty.”Leonard Cecil: "And they're very insistently contradictory. People who use -R are not bad, they are allowed to choose it. BUTYou need to go through the humane hierarchy BUTCC plus(?) DRI always works (do they really know what DRI is and why DRI and not DRA or DRO?)So there is no need to ever go beyond that UNLESS you are incompetent.”

The only reason I am sending this to you is that as she and her friends attack more and more people, and as Grisha rolls out BAT 2.0, you will see, that this has actually nothing to do with Anne, Kim or Yvette, that there are others behind this directing the show who will be harder to deal with. The accounts I have are only 2nd hand so I will not name names, but I do have

the reports on file. This is a house of cards that can come tumbling down. Just so that you DO have documentation, or as you wrote: "evidence to support it”. That much you’ve taught me. As I get more, I’ll send it along and you can judge when enough is enough to act.”

None of these email exchanges helped in any manner, so I was forced to file an extensive ethics complaint on March 10th 2014 with 2 pages having to do with one specific charge of these people actively using “shunning” in their tactics against opponents. Plus 22 numbered complaints with screen shots as proof to accompany them.

ShunningBefore getting into this, I think we need a definition of shunning6.

“I’ve written a number of pieces about mobbing, which is group bullying against an individual. Yet one of the most painful aspects of mobbing may be the least discussed—the deliberate ostracizing and shunning of a person who was once a member of the group. In the workplace, ostracizing a coworker means excluding them from the social events, work activities, committees and decision-making that make work meaningful and provide the resources and opportunities necessary to succeed. Shunning a worker goes a step further, to ignoring the worker’s very presence, and sometimes even their efforts to simply speak.”

While we've already read of at least one step in this process in terms of cutting off communications with people not found worthy of further discussion until they meet specific criteria set by the shunner (which logically would then also include agreeing with the shunner), I think with the following documented pieces to the puzzle, we can conclude, that this has become the “Standard Operating Procedure” of certain people who constitute a loosely organized (or perhaps not so loosely organized) group of people.I have to take the time to roll out these specific incidents because observed as isolated incidents, they may not mean very much. Taken as a whole, we do see a pattern, one that remarkably resembles “shunning”. And if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are pretty good, it's a duck.

Example 1:Before “publishing” my so-called “Literature Review”, I showed it to several well respected professionals7 in the field. I asked them to let me know if there were any major faults in logic or in my descriptions of the studies and their applicability to my logic as present in my own texts. They ALL found it to be an interesting and well laid out review. Although one person gave me some suggestions about form, especially about adding page numbers and the form of the bibliography entries. No one made or implied, that I did not understand or incorrectly interpreted the studies. Upon receiving these comments from these people, I “distributed” this both opening in specific Facebook pages, but also individually per email and Facebook personal message. The same applied here with an addition: many, many people thanked me for this work and that it was very well done. But no one pointed out any inaccuracies in the studies or how I'd described them, nor how those description fit with my own texts. There were sometimes some questions about this or that in the open groups and one PhD behaviorist suggested I consider levels of arousal in combination with the Affect Theory – which later would lead to her own research as well as that of some others, but however did not negate what I'd written. But once again my friends sent me screen shots and excerpts from groups from which I'd been banned (shunned?) showing a very different world. In this parallel universe, my so-called literature

6 http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-bullying/201309/the-silence-shunning-conversation-kipling-william7 Vivien Cooksley (Austria), Annik Vuffray (Switzerland), Rise Van Fleet, PhD, CDBC (USA), Gerd Schreiber

(Germany), Dr. med. vet. Maya Bräm (Switzerland)

review, although never brought in conjunction with my name, was called “junk science” done by someone who obviously did not understand what he was reading … and worse. But in none of the screen shots was even a single concrete point of contention mentioned. Nothing was countered with another study “proving” how wrong the unnamed author got it wrong. This is a very interesting strategy. You do NOT name the author or the specific work, although the references and description were clear enough due to the fact that it had been just distributed. You might pick at the quotes, wondering if permission had been received (not necessary in Switzerland unless for commercial uses) and using Wikipedia and Google Scholar as a sources for search for further scientific material. But there was, as I wrote above, no one single study given that would refute anything I'd written or anything the scientists had written. In other words a rather desperate attempt to disqualify the paper, with no real evidence.

Example 2 (Anne's timeline)This was, I think, either a call to the faithful or simply a mistake. I don't know which. It was a conversation on Anne Springers open-to-the-world Facebook time line. It was basically the admission of a shunning, tell people how they were doing it. Without mentioning my name. Since Anne blocked me, according to her either for saying nasty stuff about Americans or for stalking her on the internet – to quote NT here, she has no evidence of the later or the former. When I write nasty stuff about America, I do so about the country and specifically the politics, perhaps political figures. I do not attack either individual Americans or Americans as a group any more than George Carlin or Bill Maher did/does. Be that as it may, I cannot see her time line, but was once again provided with screen shots (2) and cut/paste excerpts (1). Now I was beginning to see a pattern

1) banned from all groups in which these people are administrators, not just kicked out, but banned, so that even on the open ones, I cannot see what is being written. This means they can write what they want about me or anyone else and I cannot read it.

2) Blocked by these people – not all of them, but from the “hard core”, what some have called the “Quadrant Queens”, ie Anne Springer, Kim Pike, Yvette van Veen and later Katharine Weber” Three others would join their ranks but not in the overtly active role.

3) Points 1) & 2) together are the ostracizing and not allowing to speak as mentioned in the quote about “shunning”. This goes way beyond just deciding to block some uncomfortable person. This discussion shows, that they did so with a plan and result in mind.

4) Not mentioning my name, both here and in the alleged rip-ups of my so-called “Literature Review” fulfills not only also the criteria of the “shunning” - the unmentionable, like an out-cast, but will also have certain consequences later, that lend even more heinous possibilities to the whole thing.

5) Now someone might say, that this was just a general trend, that I'd been behaving badly and was no longer a welcome person in Facebook groups. I've put together a rather extensive list of the dog related English speaking groups and this list tells another story:

These groups seem to have a problem me:1) Beyond Cesar Millan – Thrown out and banned (Kim Pike is one of the admins2) Canine Behavior Research Studies (Anne Springer, Kim Pike Admin) banned 3) Dealing With Dog Aggression (Force free) - (Niki Tudge, Angelica Steinker, Diane

Garrod - Admins) Membership rejected May 5 & 6, 7, 20144) Fearful Dogs (Debbie Jacobs Admin - she did sell me one of her books though) request

made May 6th 2014 rejected 7. May, 2014, tried again 7. May 2014 rejected May 7th, 2014 Anne Springer is one of the mainstays, largest, most active contributors.

5) Force Free Trainers - (Yvette Van Veen, Kim Pike, Anne Springer, Admins) applied 15.05.2014, rejected 15.05.2014, applied again 15.05.2014, rejected again 15.05.2014

6) My Next Dog Will be Trained Force Free (Anne Springer, & Yvette van Veen, Admins) approved and admitted May 6th 2014 by Joseph Patrick John Kelly at 17.15 CET removed and banned on 11. May 20148

7) Reactive Dogs (Anne Springer, Admin) requested May 6, 2014 rejected 7. May, 2014, tried again 7. May 2014, banned May 8th 2014

Pet Profession Guild Steering Committee Members = Niki Tudge, Angelica Steinker, Diane Garrod, Anne Springer

In the following english speaking groups (not counting the German ones), none of the admins mentioned above (PPG members and/or PPG Steering Committee) are administrators and I am a member, no problems:

1) Meeting Point for International Positive Dog Trainers – none of the above are admins2) All Things Dog Behavior – none of the above are admins3) Applied Behavior Analysis – none of the above are admins4) Building Strong Relationships with Animal Companions – none of the above are

admins5) Canine Freestyle Dance – none of the above are admins6) Clicker Training Group – none of the above are admins7) Cultural Shift Toward Positive Dog Training – none of the above are admins8) Dog Geekery – none of the above are admins9) Dog Training Advice and Support – none of the above are admins10) Dog Training with Positive Reinforcement – none of the above are admins 11) Dog training 101: Community forum – none of the above are admins12) Dog Tricks – none of the above are admins13) Dog Trick Geeks – none of the above are admins 14) Force Free Trainers - Solving the Aggression Puzzle – (Diane Garrod, Steering

Committee PPG is an admin, but otherwise none of the above are admins)15) Modern dog training and behaviour advice – none of the above are admins16) Modern Dog Trainers Support and Debate – none of the above are admins17) Official Behavior Adjustment Training (BAT) Facebook Group – none of the above are

admins18) Positive Dog Training Method – none of the above are admins19) Positive Dog Trainers – none of the above are admins20) Promoting Force & Pain Free Motivational Methods for Working and Sport Dog – none

of the above are admins21) Reward Based Training Support for Pet Owners – none of the above are admins 22) The Human Half of Dog Training – none of the above are admins23) Vancouver Island Animal Training Association – none of the above are admins 24) Yellowdog Australia Chat Group – none of the above are admins

24 have no problems with me / 7 have problems with me ... and who are the admins? So the pattern is clear. Where these 4 named people are Admins of groups, I'm denied access. Even one, where I'd been granted membership, I'd then afterwards been thrown out of by one of them – not for anything I'd posted, and the person who initially granted me access, invited me into his own group. BTW – the reason for the more current dates. I retired my old Facebook profile “Leonard Cecil” the middle

8 When I was removed and banned from this group, I private messaged John to let him know:Buzz Cecil Just to let you know, I've been removed and banned from the My Next Dog Will be Trained Force Free group. Joseph Patrick John Kelly I added you to my group

of April. These dates reflect the current status with my present Facebook profile “Buzz Cecil”.But before ANY of this ever really became totally obvious to me, I again received two screen shots from two different people of a discussion that took place on Anne Springer's open-to-the-public Facebook Timeline. While I had thought that these people, or perhaps some of these people might be banding together against me, based upon how they'd acted but … well, no need to be paranoid, correct? Until I got these screen shots:

It starts out innocently enough – could mean anyone. Until Ms. Weber makes the reference to “return of fear”. At that point, the people who sent this to me, knew it referred to me, because I was the one who came up with this phrase in a discussion with these people on Ms. Van Veen's timeline and then found the research on that phenomena and described/cited it in my so-called “Literature Review”. Now what's interesting is, that this is taken from Ms. Springer's Timeline. This is an open, searchable time line. The same friend who sent this to me has reported, that this thread has been removed. Why? Let's get back to that though.

In any case, it was apparent to these friends and now to me, that these four people, Anne Springer, Kim Pike Yvette Van Veen and Katharine Weber where now discussing how to “deal” with me. To ignore me and wait for “a response I like”. To keep me blocked. Shunned. Of the 4, only Ms. Webber had not “yet” blocked me.

Example 3: „Don’t Get Mud on Your Face! Citing Research in Discussions“ …. (shun)

One of the most prolific bloggers in the dog world is Ms. Eileen Anderson, also known as “eileenanddogs”. On February 21st 2014, Ms. Anderson published this blog entry quotes in the title of this example. Again, I was alerted to this by friends asking if I knew of this – that it was obviously aimed at my “Literature Review”. I knew Ms. Anderson as an admitted non-trainer who often wrote interesting blogs, but we'd parted philosophically awhile before, so I wasn't following her. As I read, I also knew exactly who this was aimed at, people who read my “Literature Review” and now had some doubts about what they'd always heard as being true – and that was the purpose. Not to set up the “truth”, but to suggest, that not everything we'd heard was to be simply taken at face value. But this article while having some good points got off to a questionable start in reference to my review with the statement in the 2nd paragraph “Some say you shouldn’t even cite research if you don’t have credentials in that field.” Wow! I work (until June 11th 2014) in IT at a University. Students in ethnology then would not be allowed to cite sociology studies in their ethnology papers? Even an ethnology student couldn't cite ethnology studies in his bachelor's work until he'd received his BS degree in Ethnology. The whole blog is a cut/slash at the review and how I should deal with the criticism and what kind of criticism I should expect, because I'd written this review without the foggiest clue as to what I was writing about – as witnessed by the people who helped me do it. (ahem) Towards the end of the blog was the biggest fish that ties into the Example 2 above, since it appears as best I can put together about 7-10 days after the discussion on Ms. Springer's Facebook Timeline.

“3. But the worst: they ignore it. They took a look and decided that gracing it with a response would be a complete waste of their time.”

“They” refers to anyone reading this who know what the people who feel most threatened by it think. By those who equate “Return of Fear” with your dog turning into a kiwi. And all the rest. Just ignore him and others who think like him and …. This leads interestingly enough directly to

Example 4: I See You and You're Not ThereShortly after this blog appeared, Ms. Niki Tudge, President, founder and financier of PPG wrote her own blog, simply linking to the Ms. Anderson's blog (see Appendix nr. 1). I had to smile, because Niki herself does NOT have the required academic credentials, but writes often about the science of dog training and behavior modification. In any case, I wrote a comment to her blog and it stayed “in moderation” for over a week and then was deleted. (see Appendix nr. 2). There was no abusive language, there were quotes from studies. No reason was given for deleting them, no email at all from Ms. Tudge who is a quite proficient and prolific emailer. I tried this again with another blog she wrote – same thing. My comment stayed in moderation several days and then was deleted and I was not informed as to why. As in Example 2 & 3, ignoring, be it as extinction, be it as the right of everyone to enter into discourse or not, or

shunning, the strategy was clearly well discussed, well planned and well executed. Well, except in those 24 Facebook groups in which I was a member, where I contribute, where my “Literature Review” was well received by trainers and people “with credentials”.

In the Defendant's Box – an interjection in timeIn another discussion group we got into another “discussion” of mine – a weakness, letting myself get dragged into these – which rapidly disintegrated into a mud-slinging contest. Before It got totally out of hand, I put together quickly a website and put these screen shots onto it, asking Ms. Weber if she really wanted to start something with me, as I had evidence of this type “shunning” being discussed “in code”. I also put this page together in case I should need some evidence myself of the context of the posting. I could always simply make a PDF out of it and send it in as is. This was a private webpage, not linked to any other on my website and not linked from any other. You have to give the exact document URL into the browser to get there. Before I put the screen shots up, I erased the names as you can see here: http://www.auf-den-hund-gekommen.net/-/nothing.htmlBTW – the quote from Dr. Rise VanFleet was used with her permission for this web site for this purpose. While giving Ms. Weber this URL did end the private message “discussion” we'd been having, unbeknownst to me, it started another behavior chain, so to speak, the climax to that point being, that I was charged on February 22nd, 2014 with an ethics complaint by Ms. Anne Springer (see Appendix nr. 3) having to do with this webpage. She is in this case not making a complaint against a public webpage, for example in a group on Facebook. She's received illegally a screen shot of a private webpage, ie, as if I'd made these comments to my wife. It's also interesting to note that she writes:“My profile photo is an original photo subject to copyright, now being used without myჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼpermission on his web site to criticize and castigate me, and others, who have beenჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼavoiding him for what now are becoming fairly obvious reasons.”ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ

Besides the fact that a missing comma makes it unclear as to whether the photo of her dog or the website is being used to “castigate me, and others” it's a very vague accusation with no concrete example of how this is to be understood as a castigation, so it's up to a very subjective judgement. It's also interesting, that a couple days after this URL was given to Ms. Weber, she sent screen shots of it to Ms. Springer. When you understand computer code, you can see that Ms. Weber took these screen shots, not Ms. Springer. This is of course taking copyrighted material, making a copy of it and distributing it to others. Slightly less than legal. Material published in Facebook does not enjoy the same copyright protection. My website was explicitly copyrighted. You can see the © at the bottom.Besides that, she did NOT block me because of “cyber-stalking on various groups”, she blocked me because she did not like my politics concerning one my former countries of citizenship, the USA.When a complaint to the ethics committee is made, the committee will review it for validity, if validity is found, then the “defendant” (in this case me) is informed and has 3 days to respond. Which I did. I noted, that this material is copyrighted and that the names had been removed. And that at least one person out of an unexplainable reason changed their profile picture. And even profile picture are not necessarily 100% identifiable to the person. Also that the photo of Ms. Springer's dog had no copyright marking and thus was not liable to US copyright law because it was on Facebook. Also, that there was nothing untrue about what I'd written, it was all documented, so it is difficult to understand how that can be considered castigating. How can one be castigated by the truth? Despite that, I was found guilty as charged on March 5th, 2014, not for including the dog's photo – this was never mentioned in the verdict, but rather because the text was not “...limited to practices

and consequences, rather than individuals.” Also as a second point,“The Ethics committee finds that the information proffered in the complaint violatesჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼGuiding Principle No. 9 that PPG members will show “respect for freedom andჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼdignity of others,” in that the references to “the Master,” were made with derisiveჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼ ჼintent.ჼ

This is quite interesting, that they knew my intent. (Like “the dog was being stubborn” or “he was being dominant”) The person meant, which was clear to everyone, was Jean Donaldson, head of the school they attend, and thus a “Schoolmaster” in old terminology. The builders of the magnificent string instruments in Cremona were “master violin builders”. Be that as it may, this refers to a 3rd

person other than the complainant or the defendant. And this was however not even named in the original complaint. It was added on after my response. I will address this again later.When I protested the guilty finding and wrote that I'd never had put the private page together if it hadn't been for the posting on Ms. Springers public Facebook timeline, they said I myself could make an ethics complaint if I felt I needed to.

My Turn – to trying filing again.So I started collating and organizing screen shots that would fulfill the criteria as shown in the ethics committee processes I'd been a part of against Ms. Springer (twice), Ms. Weber and Ms. Roberts as well as my own. I will not deny, that at this point I was disgusted at the whole thing and was setting this up to be a straw that could break the camel's back. I wanted to know if the same standards that had been applied to others and to me as a defendant, would be applied to those I would be complaining against. If yes, I'd be exonerated to a point. If not, I'd know that this was not the PPG I'd wanted when I signed up.On March 10th 2014 (see Appendix nr. 49), after burning a lot of midnight oil, collating and putting together screen shots I'd been saving, I submitted 22 numbered ethics complaints and one general complaint of “shunning”. The basis of the shunning complaint, including exactly what shunning is, can be found above. So what kinds of things did these 22 complaints consist of? They can be found in appendix nr. x. It would take too long to look at all of them. We will look at a couple of exemplary ones.One week later I sent in an addition 2 complaints.First of all we should look at what kind of things had been found to be valid ethic complaints. These are from a complaint made May 25th 2012 by a person, whose identity is known to the author of this paper but who, while giving permission to use this, does not want his/her identity made public.

Person a = complainantPerson b = defendantPerson c = 3rd party

This screenshot above is of Person b making unprofessional, personal remarks about someone other than the complainant, was found valid and the defendant found guilty.

9 This appendix had many, many appendices itself, which I do NOT include with this document. Some of the individual ones are already in this document, others as an Appendix with this document.

This screenshot above is of Person b making unprofessional, personal remarks about someone other than the complainant, was found valid and the defendant found guilty.

This screenshot is of a REPORT of Person b making unprofessional, personal remarks about someone other than the complainant, was found valid and the defendant found guilty.

This screenshot is of a REPORT of Person b making unprofessional, personal remarks about someone other than the complainant, was found valid and the defendant found guilty.

These were filed on October 24th 2012

This screenshot is of a REPORT of Person b making unprofessional, personal remarks about someone other than the complainant, was found valid and the defendant found guilty.

This screenshot is of Person b making unprofessional, personal remarks about someone other than the complainant, was found valid and the defendant found guilty.

This screenshot is of Person b making unprofessional, personal remarks about someone other than the complainant, was found valid and the defendant found guilty. Interesting, how Grisha Stewart, who's group this was, tried to reach some civility, although she herself has been the target of these personal attacks. But … has never herself made an ethics complaint. We'll get back to this point later.

Now, let's take a look at a couple of the complaints I'd made and why they were not even found to be valid. I'll let you compare them in type, style and character to those submitted in 2012.Interestingly enough, the second 2 additional complaints sent on March 16th 2014, 6 days after I'd already filed the 22 numbered complaints and the complaint about “shunning”, were taken care of first:

and:

These were found to be invalid and this on March 19th 2014 – very quickly:

and

I've been living in the German speaking part of Switzerland since 1977 and I'm just about as rusty with English as I am not proficient in German, so I did not know what “with prejudice” meant. I had to look that one up:

“Prejudice is a legal term with different meanings when used in criminal, civil or common law. In general, an action taken with prejudice indicates misconduct on the part of the party who filed the claim and forbids that party from refiling the case, while without prejudice often refers to procedural problems where the party may refile.”

“ with prejudice indicates misconduct on the part of the party who filed the claim”. Misconduct in this case on MY part for ??? Having filed? I felt that these two examples were at least as disrespectful towards certain people (as well as myself although not specifically named) as the complaints from March and October 2012. But no further explanation was given. What misconduct could I have committed by simply FILING these complaints. I waited another 2 weeks after having heard nothing about the original complaints before writing asking when I would hear something. Finally, on April 16th I received official notice (see Appendix nr. 5) concerning which complaints would not be further handled, having been deemed invalid and why, at least that, as opposed to the above complaints.Nr. 1 (see Appendix nr. 5)

Ok – although not specifically addressing the complaint of shunning in it's entirety, this is basically saying, that “shunning” is not going to be recognized as something that is going on or used as a strategy. Looking bad....

“literature review” is not only a work but also a personal identifier, inasmuch as how many people had written a “Literature Review” which contained for some people controversial information? (Hint: … ME). Why would Anne Springer even mention “literature review” if Vivian Cooksley hadn't mentioned my name. Saying that that “literature review” was “...designed to support a point of view, ...” is a veiled accusation of dishonesty, without any proof of such. She mentions “people of science...” but doesn't name any names and doesn't post any links. This is as much of a red herring as to write “it has been suggested....”. But whom? With what credentials? Where? In what context? In fact, in the complaint, I presented evidence to the contrary, that supported some of the things I'd written about/linked to/cited in the literature review. This was baseless insulting of my

person, with enough identifiers that that be understand, certainly at least as many as “the master” for which I'd been found guilty.This is interesting – the complaints from March and October 2012 were brought by Party a because Party b made disrespectful statements about Party C (3rd Party). But now, no 3rd party complaints are acceptable. When did this change occur?When? If you go to the PPG Website and know how to read code of metadata and such, you'll see( http://www.petprofessionalguild.com/EthicsFAQs ) which was placed on April 28th 2014. this would mean that probably sometime between the time I submitted the large group of complaints on March 10th 2014 and when this first official reply was sent, certain additions had to be made to the Guiding Principles. Why did these “need” to be broadened/changed now? To review, my complaints were based upon points 8 & 9 of the Guiding Principles ( http://www.petprofessionalguild.com/GuidingPrinciples )

8) Ensure all communications are professional and based in fact. When discussing industry practices, trends or issues, members will limit discussion to practices and consequences rather than the individuals using them thereby ensuring informed, professional and civil exchanges that enrich members and the industry of force-free pet professionals.

9) Apply the following ethical principles to each situation you encounter: Respect for the freedom and dignity of others.Do no harm.Do good.Act fairly.Be faithful to promises made.

New, according to the FAQ, as of April 28th 2014 is:1) No 3rd party complaints. When you think about this, this is pretty huge. If a 15 year old kid

goes to a Facebook group and asks about BAT and is pounded on for this, only he can make a complaint, not his parents. That's heavy.

2) Some complaints will not be dealt with if considered not valid from the beginning. Fair enough, as long as all are playing by the same rules.

3) The process can take months. 4) “Q. Can I File a Complaint Against an Organization?

Answer. The Ethics Office accepts complaints against members acting in their individual capacities. In other words, the Ethics Committee can only address each member's unethical behavior as an individual, and not their involvement in a group decision or action.” I'm not sure if this means one needs to file a separate complaint against each member of a specific group if those people acting as a group violate the guiding principles.

5) You have to file your complaint within 30 days of the occurrence.

The no 3rd party complaints pretty well takes care of almost all of mine, including the one that I found to be most egregious:

based upon (mentioned already above):

This now is invalid of course, because no one specifically is mentioned, so that it applies to a class (or group) of people (3rd party) and therefore under the rules, appended through the FAQs placed after the finding on April 28th 2014, concerning the Guiding Principles and Ethics Complaints, it's not a valid complaint. This means, you could now say, “No competent trainer would take seriously a blog written by a dog owner who has no training experience or credentials” with complete impunity. Because no specific person was named and that person who thought he/she was meant was the only one who could file a claim.One could also write “Quadrant police: STFU” with complete impunity, right? - ah HA! Gottcha. According to the newly amended rules, you cannot file a claim against an organization. And if anyone is ORGANIZED, it's the “Quadrant Queens (police)” also known as the “Quadrant police”. So I suppose it depends upon who sees this and in what context. Niki Tudge, president of the PPG saw and “liked” the posting below starting with “Quadrant police: STFU” from February 22nd 2014. Now if I asked you, “Who are the “Quadrant Queens” or who are the “Quadrant police”, you'd know exactly who was meant. 46 people including even Niki Tudge knew who they are (see below), “liked” the initial posting and many related their own encounters with said “Quadrant

Queens” (see Appendix nr. 6). The names of the “Quadrant Queens” (“Quadrant police”) figure prominently throughout this document (gee, I wonder if they have a name for “us”. I have seen “BAT-Bork” and the “Bork Collective”, but nothing quasi-official.).

But the above was not even the basis of the complaint. The basis of complaint was two words tucked into a comment section - now closed and unviewable by the public on a private blog by … wait for it...Ms. Heidi Steinbeck, Steering Committee member of the PPG (see screen shot to the right). Now, hands high? How many even think of that name in conjunction with the terms “Quadrant Queens” or “Quadrant police”? No , me neither. But she did, apparently. Can you find it? I know it's small print, but it's in there. Is Ms. Steinbeck referenced by name? Don't forget, this is a criteria for a complaint. It was this blog comment that is the basis of the ethics complaint brought against Ms. McMullen and also the inspiration for her own Facebook entry about. THAT is not basis of the complaint. Why not? Is Ms. Steinbeck supposed to be considered a member of the Quadrant Queens but not a member of the Quadrant police? Are these 2 different groups?Now, if Ms. Steinbeck is NOT considered a member of the “quadrant queens”, then she is making an ethics complaint for a 3rd person, unnamed in the complaint itself (see appendix nr. 7) submitted on March 20th (after my 22-point complaint), found valid and sent on to Ms McMullen on April 2nd 2014, but THAT should never had been determined to be a valid complaint by the present expanded rules.

What this means is, that the complainant must submit proof that the offending text means HER and no one else – which she didn't, at least it was not provided with the complaint itself, only the screen shot of the comments above. There must be proof of an individual being referenced and not as an organization (group). Writing “quadrant queens” is certainly no more specific or generally known than “literature review” and who was being referenced (cough, cough - sarcasm/off) – except in “quadrant queens” Ms. Steinbeck is NOT one of them and … we know who wrote this “literature review. As I read it, no one could even guess, that Ms. Steinbeck was meant in the terms “Quadrant Queens” or “Quadrant police”. As I see it, according to the new rules, this would not be a valid complaint. Under the old rules, only perhaps. In any case, we do have a case that blocks out a time frame, under which one set of rules applied until sometime after February 22nd, probably later, until sometime after March 10th 2014, when I submitted my complaints and the rules had changed, but only posted as of April 28th 2014 in the FAQs to the ethics committee. Those are rather clearly moving goal posts.In any case, I'm not the only person who has experience ethics complaints in a manner for which they were not intended and with their “moveable goal post” approach. So now, back to me.I might also point out that, while I did receive the status report of the numbers complaints on PPG stationary as an official correspondence from the PPG, I have yet to receive a similar official report on the status of the 3 points for which there -could- have been a violation (Nr. 4, 7 & 11) on PPG letterhead. I have received rather short, non-official sounding emails, but if the complaint is on letter head in an official manner, I expect the same handling of the continued process. In fact I actually received an email saying I would receive no more communication on this matter. This means I have not received word if the defendants had been found guilty or not guilty and if guilty, what the penalty was. The complainant from October 2012 WAS informed of these points after closure of the complaint process. Nor have I received an official statement concerning the charge of “shunning”. Shunning is a form of bullying and as such the PPG, when faced with the charge and the evidence presented that a group of members, of which a member of the Steering Committee and a Special Counsel have been implicated, needs to take a stance, no matter who brings this charge and no matter what evidence is presented, whether it's conform with their internal Guiding Principles (which as we've seen are very open to change) or not. This is a serious charge of extremely abusive behavior10. We know from various other instances of other organizations, that organizations cannot efficiently police themselves from within. This needs to be opened to an outside neutral body to more fully investigate, not only the matter of shunning, but also the the use of the Steering Committee as a body against any trainers. For don't forget, protocols such as BAT are not against any Guiding Principles or rules against pain or fear inducing tools, yet BAT users are likened to shock collar trainers, and are accused of practicing on a lower moral-ethical level than others. That cannot be the message of the PPG nor allowed unless these methods are explicitly forbidden.

10 http://beingshunned.blogspot.chhttp://raisingsmallsouls.com/is-shunning-an-act-of-bullying/http://news.jrn.msu.edu/bullying/2012/03/27/a-new-bullying-social-exclusion/http://bullyfreeatwork.com/blog/?p=1575http://crystalspraggins.blogspot.ch/2013/02/shunningnot-just-for-religious-sects.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-harper/a-reason-and-season-to-st_b_1146103.htmlhttp://childrenshospitalblog.org/a-doctors-response-to-bullying/http://www.bullying.org/htm/main.cfm?content=1059http://isp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/59/1/61http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bullies-hurt-themselves/

Conclusion – WHY?Here is where the rubber hits the road. Why did I leave the PPG? Isn't the PPG doing a great job for trainers and dogs? The PPG IS doing a lot for trainers and dogs, but not exactly what it was conceived to do. It's morphed into something I cannot support.

1) The PPG is not an international organization. Since I left the Steering Committee (SC): 1. There has been no further outreach to non-English-speaking organizations as Strategic

Alliance Partners, neither to new ones nor to the ones I'd arranged. 2. There has been no attempt to make the various existing “services” accessible to non-

English speaking members and their clients. In fact it's gone backwards in that even the lame Google-translate has been removed from the PPG webpage. There have been no further translations of existing documents for non-English speaking members and their clients.

3. There have been no further articles, reviews, announcements by non-English speaking members, no attempts that I'm aware of to actively seek these.

4. Despite the fact, that so many such services are not available to non-English members and their clients, non-English speaking members from countries where English is not a official national language are expected to pay the same membership fees as English speakers, although they have no practical access to these resources. This was pointed out BEFORE the setting of membership fees and was ignored. Or not found worthy of consideration.

2) As a general rule, at the end of a calendar year or fiscal year, a company or non-profit issues a financial statement for the present year and a proposed budget for coming year. Through this instrument, the “stockholders” and public (members) can see what monies have been spent for what in the current year and what monies have been budgeted for what in the coming fiscal/calendar year. This is also the time where an external agency can inspect the books for “correctness”. Since the founding of PPG there has been neither. The members have no basis upon which to make a decision if their membership fees are justified.

3) There have been changes to Special Counsel and the Steering Committee, of which the members were not notified. I'm thinking about James O'Heare leaving as special counsel and Markus Strauss leaving the Steering Committee. Mr. Strauss was a German living in Ireland. There is now no European representation on the SC and no non-English (mother tongue) member. It is now 100% Anglo-Saxon in nature and culture.

4) As shown through the examples of Ethics Committee's handling of complaints, favored people get favored treatment and “policy” is invented or changed as is comfortable to these favored people. These were changes to the Guiding Principles, not originally explicitly outlined in the Guiding Principles or the workings of the Ethic Committee, but have rather had been “inserted” during an ethics complaint “investigation”. This manner of dealing with uncomfortable situations within the process and the PPG is unworthy of a body that in itself is supposed to represent a higher standard of ethics and morals. Human personal interests have succeeded in gaining the upper hand over the commendable goals.

5) The Ethics Complaint procedure itself has become a political instrument of philosophical group against philosophical group, something it was never meant to be, for example when one complaint can be considered valid enough that a defendant should be informed that the procedure has started and can defend herself, when no specific names are named in the proof, just assumed. And at the same time, other complaints are considered invalid because no specific names were named, or the complaint was made concerning accusations made about a 3rd party, then something is wrong with how this system is being used and being permitted to be used.

6) There has been a concerted effort, even at the absolute highest levels of the PPG to suppress opinions that may be uncomfortable yet not against the Guiding Principles. This has consisted of either elements of or full-blown strategies of “shunning” which is not the same as an individual's right of association in the internet. When people are animated to undertake this and the highest members both revel in having done so and/or actively participate in this, this is not in keeping with the Guiding Principles themselves.

So, what is my purpose for putting this all together? Am I just trying to get back at the PPG? Schadenfreude? A friend of mine asked me even before I started writing this, when I'd expressed certain “uncomfortable truths” (not even about the PPG, but in another such situation), if I wasn't committing professional suicide? I found that very strange. I understand the sentiment – this person is relatively young and dependent upon maintaining good contacts with people. I like good contacts with people, but not necessarily with those sticking knives in my back. I even just heard the comment, that “XYZ must be paying you a lot to advocate for her.” (not the exact words, was originally longer). From the very beginning there were people who were not satisfied with the PPG. Some expressed wishes that could not be met. Others saw things that were not there. Still others had fears that things they'd been successfully doing for years would actually be devalued compared with beginners who simply passed a test – something that is actually a very real concern. And some expressed concerns, that this group, as it now stands, is not on a healthy foundation. There's too much that has a potential for, and I don't use the term lightly, corruption. And unfortunately I think they are to a certain degree correct. Too many things change to fit the presiding circumstances and philosophies. Too many things lack transparency. Too many loose cannons, shooting off as they wish, with the impunity and even blessing of the highest levels of the organization.So I had to look at ME and ask ME the hard questions. I have my own moral standards and expectations. Was the PPG living up to these? Could I continue to support things that were not perfect but still beneficial? Or had I reached MY limits of what I could associate myself with? And it reached that point still in the middle of my own Ethics Complaint, where 2 complaints I'd submitted after the main document were handled and considered invalid, long before the main complaints had been dealt with. And the reasons for this. That showed me, that the rest of my complaints, which were partly similar had just suffered from the “moving goal-post syndrome”. And I tendered my resignation. What happened after that – the rejection of all the rest except 3, no official statement as to status despite several attempts. The closing off of communications by NT despite the admission, that a typo had made the communication I'd been asking about un-understandable, made it clear, that my resignation had been the right thing to do, if I'd had any doubts at the time.And YOU? What about you? I know that the Steering Committee and Ethics Committee members will try to deride this paper and even me. They will say that these processes need to take place in confidentiality. And they're right as long as the reason is to protect the innocent. But when the process itself has become sick, there is no way to expose the wound that it may heal, other than to roll up your sleeves and expose it. They're going to try to assault my integrity – it's already happened actually. On the same day that I was informed, that no further communication would be coming concerning by complaints, a cryptic message appear on one Steering Committee member's Facebook timeline (I received a screen shot as usual), that this person had, over the last few weeks been receiving unpleasant messages, tags and posts on Facebook, etc. etc. Well, that couldn't have been from me, because I'd blocked this person before I started the ethics complaint process. And then … poof … this message was deleted from the timeline, but not before I got 3 private messages asking “did you know anything about this?”. So you may want to ask yourself, if you are going to do anything about it and if so, what.

Leonard CecilMay 22, 2014

Appendix Nr. 1

22.05.14 18:31Don’t Get Mud on Your Face! Citing Research in Discussions | eileenanddogs

Page 1 of 9http://eileenanddogs.com/2014/02/21/reading-citing-research-journal/

Don’t Get Mud on Your Face! Citing Research in DiscussionsPosted on February 21, 2014

Lots of us in the dog community read journal articles and scholarly books to learn more about the sciencebehind behavior, even if our academic credentials lie elsewhere. And sooner or later we want to share whatwe’ve learned, out of the goodness of our hearts (grin), or more likely to try to win an argument persuadesomeone of our position.

Some say you shouldn’t even cite research if you don’t have credentials in that field. I think that’s true to someextent, but I also think it is beneficial to read and try to assess research even if you don’t have those credentials.Delving into scholarly journals isn’t always easy, but it’s one of the best ways to expand your knowledge andlearn about the dialectic nature of science. But you have to keep front and center in your mind that if you arereading about a discipline that you don’t have academic expertise in, you are at a huge disadvantage comparedto the people who have a longstanding background in that area.

One of the first rules of citing research is that you must understand the context, both for your own benefit and tosave your ass from embarrassment. And if you don’t know much of the context, you’d be well advised to startstudying.

Let’s say you run across a quote that refers to some research. It supports a position that might be a littlecontroversial or a minority view, but you are excited since you hold that view yourself. You are delighted andready to quote it, both to impress your friends and show the other camp a thing or two. What should you do?

As someone whose credentials are in fields other than psychology or animal behavior, here are some guidelinesI have developed.

eileenanddogsWhat my dogs teach me.

22.05.14 18:31Don’t Get Mud on Your Face! Citing Research in Discussions | eileenanddogs

Page 2 of 9http://eileenanddogs.com/2014/02/21/reading-citing-research-journal/

Cherry picking is a rhetorical fallacy

What to Do Before You Quote the Article

1. Find the original source. If you read about the study in Newsweek or The New Yorker, get the author’s nameand track down the original research article. An editorial mention is not peer-reviewed research. You mayhave to pay for the original piece or order it through a library if you don’t have university access. Anotheroption is to send an email to the author. You’d be surprised how many times they’ll just send it to you. Besure and thank them politely!

2. Read the article. The first time, don’t worry too much about all the stuff you don’t understand. Try to forgeahead and get a sense of the whole thing.

3. Read the article again.4. Study the charts and graphics. What are they measuring? What’s on the x-axis and what’s on the y-axis of

the charts? What statistical methods did they use?5. Now look up the terms you don’t understand. Give yourself a crash course if you need to.6. If there are still big sections that you don’t get, consult an expert in the field if you can.7. Read the article again. Are you beginning to understand it?8. If not, and if you have no way of doing so, stop right there. Don’t bother to quote it. If you think you

understand it moderately well, proceed.9. Find the quote that got you started in the first place.

10. Study the part in the article just before it. How was the experiment or problem set up?11. Study the part just after it. Did they qualify the statement at all? If

so, you are ethically bound to include that part if you plan to quotethe study. “The new XYZ method works 95% of the time (YAY!), butonly with orphaned voles raised with chipmunks and no otherrodents (oh).

12. Study the results section and the discussion section. These sectionsare where the authors summarize their results and make the casefor their findings. But they are also bound to announce thelimitations, and we should be just as attentive to those.

13. Think hard about applicability. If it is about behavior, are there bigbehavioral differences between the subject species and the one youwant to apply it to? Is one a prey animal and another a predator?Have the researchers done something spectacular in the controlled condition of the lab that can’t possibly bereplicated in real life? Or conversely, have they found a problem that rarely shows up in the real worldbecause of the ways that good trainers know how to help animals generalize and practice behaviors? Treadcarefully. Think it through. You’ll look silly if you announce a problem that real world experts have beenaware of for ages and already know how to avoid.

14. Find out how many times the article has been cited. Google Scholar will give you a rough idea. If there arefew citations it generally means the work made very few ripples in the scientific world (usually a bad sign)unless it is brand new. If it has lots, keep that in mind for # 18.

15. Start reading the citations. Did they show further research that replicated the results? Or did they yielddifferent results and argue against the first conclusion? Sometimes you can tell from just the abstracts, butsometimes you’ll need to get the full text of those articles too. You may run across a review article of thewhole topic. Read it!

22.05.14 18:31Don’t Get Mud on Your Face! Citing Research in Discussions | eileenanddogs

Page 3 of 9http://eileenanddogs.com/2014/02/21/reading-citing-research-journal/

16. Take note of the date of the article. If it was from 1975 and the thread of research continues through 1980,1983, 1988, and 1992, you’d better read to the end. You’ll either bolster your case or save yourself someembarrassment.

17. Find a ranking for the journal that published the article. Here’s a journal-ranking site. CollectionDevelopment Librarians can also help you assess the comparative merit and ranking of journals andacademic publishers. This is another area where you may save yourself some embarrassment. If the rankingis abysmal and the only other publications citing the article are from the same journal–you have a problem.And beware of the open source “pay and publish” journals; they require even more careful assessment.

18. Search through the citations and find the major opponents of the work if there are any. Get the cheerleaderout of your head and address the article critically. What do the opponents of the work say? What are theopposing hypotheses and results? Do they make sense? How many citations do they have? (Being heavilycited only shows that people paid attention to the article. A good start. But it might be because a bunch offuture studies demolished the findings.)

Take a deep breath. Does your quote have merit? Is it a fair claim, given what else you have learned? Is it from agood source? Has it stood the test of time? Does it apply to your own topic? If so, go for it. Write your post,make your claim, but qualify it appropriately. Cite your source and be careful about Fair Use guidelines: givecomplete credit so that anybody could go find the very article and quote you are citing, but don’t quote hugechunks.

22.05.14 18:31Don’t Get Mud on Your Face! Citing Research in Discussions | eileenanddogs

Page 4 of 9http://eileenanddogs.com/2014/02/21/reading-citing-research-journal/

What does Chance say?

What To Expect Afterwards

Your friends will be proud of you. People who disagree may be irritated or outraged. But here is what to be readyfor. There are virtually always people with better knowledge and credentials than you in a given field. If you arealready in the hierarchy of academia, you are keenly aware of this.

So, those people may have something to say about what you wrote. Here are the main possible reactions:

1. They address you with criticism of your piece from the benefit of their broader knowledge. They may ask ifyou considered Joe Schmoe’s experiment from 2004. They may advise you that you made a beginner’s errorand you forgot to account for the “Verporeg Effect.” They may tell you that you really need to start overbecause of the discrepancy between the metrics being used in the different studies. Make no mistake: This isa GREAT response to get from experts. Even if you personally feel ripped to shreds and devastated, get aholdof yourself. They took you seriously enough to make suggestions. They took time out of their day. Thankthem (publicly if their critique was public) and go do as they suggested.

2. They argue in opposition to your piece. Now you have lots more work to do. They have an advantage. They

22.05.14 18:31Don’t Get Mud on Your Face! Citing Research in Discussions | eileenanddogs

Page 5 of 9http://eileenanddogs.com/2014/02/21/reading-citing-research-journal/

know the field. They are probably right. But you can make lemonade. Go study their points. You wanted tolearn about this, right? Now you have a chance to learn some more. This is still hard on the ego, but again,you got taken at least somewhat seriously, and you have an opportunity to learn. And if/when you find thatthey are probably right, be gracious.

3. But the worst: they ignore it. They took a look and decided that gracing it with a response would be acomplete waste of their time. So you can either puff up your ego and decide that no one recognizes yourgenius, or go back on your own and study some more. Maybe you are that lone polymath who has connectedthe dots between some interdisciplinary stuff and people will recognize your genius later. More likely youwere just out of your depth. The people who make radical, startling discoveries are usually immersed in thefield in which they make the discovery, or a closely related one.

But hey. You did your best. You probably learned a lot. Whatever the response to your claim, you must foreverbe ready to delve more deeply if someone comes up with a well-supported opposing point of view. Be a goodsport. That’s how science works.

And by the way: I write from experience. I’ve made a variety of mistakes in citing resources and making claims. Ithank the people who kindly helped me improve my understanding and make corrections.

Resources

Cornell University: How to Read a Research ArticleHarvard University: How to Read a Research PaperThe Federalist: The Death of ExpertiseThe Science Dog: Thyroid on Trial (not just about thyroid research–it uses thyroid as an example of how toassess research)

Coming Up:

All-NaturalWhich Dog is Playing?Invisible CuesHow Skilled are You at Ignoring? (Extinction Part 2)More Training Errors: Cautionary Tales (I seem to have an abundance of these)

Eileenanddogs on YouTube

Photo credits: Clara with mud on face and Summer “reading,” Eileen Anderson. Cherries, WikimediaCommons. The circle and slash added by Eileen Anderson.

Share this:

Twitter 13 Facebook 202 StumbleUpon Pinterest Google Email Reddit

Like

8 bloggers like this.

Leonard CecilMay 22, 2014

Appendix Nr. 2

06.03.14 20:18Don’t Get Mud on Your Face! Citing Research in Discussions | BFTG

Page 1 of 3http://barksfromtheguild.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/dont-get-mud-on-your-face-citing-research-in-discussions/

Don’t Get Mud on Your Face! Citing Research in DiscussionsPosted on February 21, 2014 by BFTG

BFTG:

Originally posted on eileenanddogs:

Lots of us in the dog community read journal articles and scholarly books to learn more about the sciencebehind behavior, even if our academic credentials lie elsewhere. And sooner or later we want to share whatwe’ve learned, out of the goodness of our hearts (grin), or more likely to try to win an argument persuadesomeone of our position.

Some say you shouldn’t even cite research if you don’t have credentials in that field. I think that’s true to someextent, but I also think it is beneficial to read and try to assess research even if you don’t have those credentials.Delving into scholarly journals isn’t always easy, but it’s one of the best ways to expand your knowledge andlearn about the dialectic nature of science. But you have to keep front and center in your mind that if you arereading about a discipline that you don’t have academic expertise in, you are at a huge disadvantage comparedto the people who have a longstanding background in that area.

View original

BFTGPPG Media – Blogs, Podcasts and PPGWorld Service Boradcasts

Another great blog from our friend over at Eileen and Dogs

06.03.14 20:18Don’t Get Mud on Your Face! Citing Research in Discussions | BFTG

Page 2 of 3http://barksfromtheguild.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/dont-get-mud-on-your-face-citing-research-in-discussions/

About BFTGThe Pet Professional Guild is a membership business league for individuals and professional pet industry businesses having thecommon business interest and goal of furthering the public’s education and awareness of force-free dog training and pet caremethods, techniques and state of research in dog training and pet care and to promote the common interest of spreading ‘force-free’ dog training and pet care methods to the pet industry. The PPG provides professional registry, representation andeducation to ‘force-free’ pet care providers and the public with an emphasis on building collaboration among ‘force-free’ pettrainers and professional pet care providers to improve the business conditions and promote the common interests of force-free.View all posts by BFTG →

Share this:

Print Google LinkedIn Twitter Facebook StumbleUpon Tumblr Digg Email

This entry was posted in Stuff and tagged Force Free, PPG, research, science. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Don’t Get Mud on Your Face! Citing Research in Discussions

Like

Be the first to like this.

Leonard Cecil says:Your comment is awaiting moderation. February 25, 2014 at 9:28 am

hmmm … so we should view any non-academic who cites a study or quotes from one in any kind of setting, books, magazinearticles, blogs (Chance, Sidman), skeptically, because chances are they’re not able to navigate that academic worldsuccessfully.

One sure sign of “baloney” is the statement “science says…” or “science tells us….” or “science documents…” without givingthe exact science.

Credentials, and specifically not academic credentials, are not given in dog training – that’s part of the problem. Academiccredentials are PhD holders. Masters, while not easy, is just that first step along the way. So if we are only to have the“credentials” to cite peer review work in a manner that shows we understand what it’s all about, then only those on that sameacademic level should be allowed to do so. Ignoring of course that they too -may- be only citing what “wins their argument”(whoops, not THAT), um … I mean persuade someone of their position.

But if only, “experts” -should- quote or cite the science, and it’s the academics who are the experts, this means we shouldpretty much NOT take very seriously anyone who is NOT a PhD, and therefore is not part of that academic process him- orherself. And by extension of that logic, we can exclude all bloggers who lay claim to expert knowledge without the having theactual expert academic and peer reviewed background in that field. And here are some of the names which immediately comeinto mind:Nan Arthur, Sonya Bevan, Irith Bloom, Eric Brad, Stacey Braslau-Schneck, Carol Byrnes, Suzanne Chlothier, PamelaDennison, Jean Donaldson, Laura Dorfman, Barry Eaton, etc., etc.

Need I go on?

So if someone without academic credentials should put out such a paper, that should be relatively easy to refute, don’t youthink? It’s easier to simply relegate someone’s work according to your criteria to the circular file and not have to actuallythink about what’s been presented, if it perhaps does have some legitimacy, and not have to actually dig to refute any of it.What a relief – think of all the bookspace on my shelves I can now have.

09.03.14 16:37Don’t Get Mud on Your Face! Citing Research in Discussions | BFTG

Page 1 of 2http://barksfromtheguild.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/dont-get-mud-on-your-face-citing-research-in-discussions/

Don’t Get Mud on Your Face! Citing Research in DiscussionsPosted on February 21, 2014 by BFTG

BFTG:

Originally posted on eileenanddogs:

Lots of us in the dog community read journal articles and scholarly books to learn more about the sciencebehind behavior, even if our academic credentials lie elsewhere. And sooner or later we want to share whatwe’ve learned, out of the goodness of our hearts (grin), or more likely to try to win an argument persuadesomeone of our position.

Some say you shouldn’t even cite research if you don’t have credentials in that field. I think that’s true to someextent, but I also think it is beneficial to read and try to assess research even if you don’t have those credentials.Delving into scholarly journals isn’t always easy, but it’s one of the best ways to expand your knowledge andlearn about the dialectic nature of science. But you have to keep front and center in your mind that if you arereading about a discipline that you don’t have academic expertise in, you are at a huge disadvantage comparedto the people who have a longstanding background in that area.

View original

BFTGPPG Media – Blogs, Podcasts and PPGWorld Service Boradcasts

Another great blog from our friend over at Eileen and Dogs

09.03.14 16:37Don’t Get Mud on Your Face! Citing Research in Discussions | BFTG

Page 2 of 2http://barksfromtheguild.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/dont-get-mud-on-your-face-citing-research-in-discussions/

About BFTGThe Pet Professional Guild is a membership business league for individuals and professional pet industry businesses having thecommon business interest and goal of furthering the public’s education and awareness of force-free dog training and pet caremethods, techniques and state of research in dog training and pet care and to promote the common interest of spreading ‘force-free’ dog training and pet care methods to the pet industry. The PPG provides professional registry, representation andeducation to ‘force-free’ pet care providers and the public with an emphasis on building collaboration among ‘force-free’ pettrainers and professional pet care providers to improve the business conditions and promote the common interests of force-free.View all posts by BFTG →

Share this:

Print Google LinkedIn Twitter Facebook StumbleUpon Tumblr Digg Email

This entry was posted in Stuff and tagged Force Free, PPG, research, science. Bookmark the permalink.

BFTG

Like

Be the first to like this.

The Twenty Ten Theme Blog at WordPress.com.

Leonard CecilMay 22, 2014

Appendix Nr. 3

I�would�like�the�Ethics�Committee�to�review�the�following�to�see�if,�in�its�estimation,�a�violation�of�the�Guiding�Principles�has�occurred,�namely�#8�Ͳ�criticizing�members�personally,�versus�their�methods.�(leaving�PPG�members�recognizable�via�profile�pics�&�quotes)�&�#9�Ͳ�people�have�the�right�NOT�to�answer�his�questions�or�read/respond�to�someone’s�“literature�review”�or�to�limit�their�Internet�contact�with�another�professional�without�being�personally�attacked.�

Recently,�it�was�brought�to�my�attention,�by�a�Facebook�friend,�that�Leonard�Cecil�posted�a�screen�shot�from�my�personal�Facebook�page�to�his�web�site�(http://www.aufͲdenͲhundͲgekommen.net/Ͳ/nothing.html).��I�blocked�him�some�time�ago,�to�avoid�his�cyberͲstalking�on�various�groups,�and�persistent�demands�that�his�questions�be�answered,�or�reͲanswered�if�he�disliked�the�original�response.��I�began�to�find�his�behavior�somewhat�worrying.��No�PPG�member�is�bound�to�read�his�material�or�answer�every�question�he�has.�

He�removed�our�names�from�the�screen�shot�page,�however�he�left�other�identifying�information,�namely�my,�and�my�friends’�profile�pictures.��My�profile�photo�is�an�original�photo�subject�to�copyright,�now�being�used�without�my�permission�on�his�web�site�to�criticize�and�castigate�me,�and�others,�who�have�been�avoiding�him�for�what�now�are�becoming�fairly�obvious�reasons.��That�is�certainly�not�debate�or�professional�conduct�–�it�appears�to�be�a�vindictive�witch�hunt�which�goes�beyond�the�scope�of�normal,�even�contentious,�debate�of�issues�into�the�realm�of�pure�vitriol.�

Thanks�for�your�consideration,�

Anne�Springer�

�

�

������

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

Leonard CecilMay 22, 2014

Appendix Nr. 4

This is my original 22 point ethics complaint, with the 2 pages detailing my complaint about „shunning“ from March 10th 2014, but without it's own appendices as several have already been included with this document.

Ethics Complaint

submitted by

Leonard CecilLifetime Founding Member PPG

March 10, 2014

This page left intentionally blank

Leonard CecilIm Schaiengarten 5CH-4107 Ettingen

SchweizTel. +4176 587 1119

Ettingen, March 10, 2014

To whom it may concern,

With this letter I wish to hereby open an Ethic Committee complaint against the following people for violations of Guiding Principles Nrs. 8 and/or 9:Ms. Jean Donaldson Ms. Niki TudgeMs. Anne SpringerMs. Kim PikeMs. Katharine WeberMs. Yvette Van VeenMs. Eileen Anderson

The reasons will be documented with screen shots and PDFs in the appendixes.

These show an often harmful, insulting, aggressive (both passive and direct through actions) manner of dealing not only with PPG members but also non-PPG members in public Facebook forums. The specific actions consist of, amongst others, willfully misrepresenting facts, methods and statements of people with whom they do not agree. Some postings globally label fellow professional as “incompetent” if they experienced different results than the labeler. This is certainly no professional manner to interact with one's colleagues. Imagine what kind of training world we'd have if this was applied to any method or technique. More disturbing is the usage of the +P (if you will) method of shunning, exactly described “Stealth shunning is a practice where a person or an action is silently banned. When a person is silently banned, the group they have been banned from doesn't interact with them. This can be done by secretly announcing the policy to all except the banned individual, or it can happen informally when all people in a group or email list each conclude that they do not want to interact with the person. When an action is silently banned, requests for that action are either ignored or turned down with faked explanations.”1 More on shunning2.This is of course a very harmful manner of psychological punishment, as the object then cut off from all social contact to the person(s) or group. This is a punishment not only used against my person, but also against others, one specific example was also supplied. This took the form of either expelling people from groups in which they'd been members and/or also “banning” them from the same group, which also prohibited the banned person from seeing content in said open group and/or blocking such a “shunned” person, which meant that this person cannot see postings of the blocker in any other group in which the two might participate.While looking through the documentation, you will notice that Ms. Tudge and Ms. Anderson do not figure as prominently as the others. The reason has to do with my so-called “Literature Review” Ms. Anderson wrote a blog3 in which the subject obviously had to do with that review, especially when considering Ms. Springer's comments in the screen shots about it. Point 3 quoted from the blog below outlines basically the methodology of the shunning, how it can be and is being done. This can be found in these paragraphs:

So, those people may have something to say about what you wrote. Here are the main possible reactions:

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning2 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-harper/a-reason-and-season-to-st_b_1146103.html3 http://eileenanddogs.com/2014/02/21/reading-citing-research-journal/

1. They address you with criticism of your piece from the benefit of their broader knowledge. They may ask if you considered Joe Schmoe’s experiment from 2004. They may advise you that you made a beginner’s error and you forgot to account for the “Verporeg Effect.” They may tell you that you really need to start over because of the discrepancy between the metrics being used in the different studies. Make no mistake: This is a GREAT response to get from experts. Even if you personally feel ripped to shreds and devastated, get ahold of yourself. They took you seriously enough to make suggestions. They took time out of their day. Thank them (publicly if their critique was public) and go do as they suggested.

2. They argue in opposition to your piece. Now you have lots more work to do. They have an advantage. They know the field. They are probably right. But you can make lemonade. Go study their points. You wanted to learn about this, right? Now you have a chance to learn some more. This is still hard on the ego, but again, you got taken at least somewhat seriously, and you have an opportunity to learn. And if/when you find that they are probably right, be gracious.

3. But the worst: they ignore it. They took a look and decided that gracing it with a response would be a complete waste of their time. So you can either puff up your ego and decide that no one recognizes your genius, or go back on your own and study some more. Maybe you are that lone polymath who has connected the dots between some interdisciplinary stuff and people will recognize your genius later. More likely you were just out of your depth. The people who make radical, startling discoveries are usually immersed in the field in which they make the discovery, or a closely related one.

Point number 3 above can be understood as exactly what was done. It was what Ms. Van Veen and Ms. Springer mentioned in Ms. Springer's timeline, which I'd received from a friend and posted on a private secret webpage which was then illegally copied, reproduced and sent to at least Ms. Springer and YOU – see Appendix 4 In case there was any doubt as to whether the thread on Ms. Springers timeline was about ME, I include her original Ethics Committee complaint, where she wrote that I was meant (text highlighted). See Appendix 3. So we have a case, where she writes that “people” (me) block her (not true) and that she blocked me (true) for being abusive (not true) or for “stalking” (not true). Many untruths here to fit the situation. Public accusations made without any proof. I at least can proof, that I didn't block her or Ms. Pike or any of the defendants.Ms. Tudge then followed suit and linked to Ms. Anderson's blog on the “Bars From The Guild” blog, as being something members of the PPG should read. I left blog comments to both this blog entry4 as well as a blog entry by Ms. Tudge5 about the problems of negative reinforcement. When you'll go to each of these blog entries, you'll see, that there are no comments from me. If you look however at Appendix 7 and 8, you will see when I entered my comments, that they were “awaiting moderation”. Check the dates as to when the PDF was created showing the comments can compare with when they “disappeared”. There was no abusive language used, there was no reason given me by Ms. Tudge, why these comments were deleted, and she HAD been very good in her email communication when she wanted something from me. I can only deduce, that since she linked to the blog that outlined “how one could react”, that she was also practicing what Ms. Anderson had recommended as a reaction.I might also add at this point, people DID discuss both this review with me as well as other topics concerning the POV of Ms. Donaldson and her students. These were “people of science” too who did not find it necessary to shun (planned ignoring) me. Please see Appendix 1 & 5. The same thing can be said about questions I'd asked about techniques Ms. Donaldson had said would work if “competently” done. Please see Appendix 6.

Ms. Springer accused me of starting threads, a Friday “rant” that were specifically aimed at her. This is simply not true and I've included the entire “rant” threads. See Appendix 2a – 2f.This is a very unwelcomed step I must take, because this manner of interacting with other people is highly unprofessional and in the long run will only hurt the force free community. If you need any further information, please let me know.

Very sincerely

Leonard Cecil

4 http://barksfromtheguild.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/dont-get-mud-on-your-face-citing-research-in-discussions/5 http://barksfromtheguild.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/coercion-in-pet-dog-training-leads-dogs-to-a-life-of-quiet-desperation-2/

Individual Screen shots, most sent to me by friends, warning me of this going on, mostly behind my back, as to content, reason for including them in this ethics complaint againstJean Donaldson Niki TudgeAnne SpringerKim PikeKatharine WeberYvette Van VeenEileen Anderson

Nr. 1 - „shunning“ = doing harm by deliberately NOT communicating - against Anne Springer1Guiding Principles Nr. 8 & 9

Nr. 2 - accusing PPG member Grisha Stewart of developing BAT „All in the name of book sales“ and goes on in this vein for a couple of sentences. Personal attacks instead of discussion the method used against Anne SpringerGuiding Principles Nr. 8 & 9

Ethics Complaint from Leonard Cecil      -      Montag, 10. März 2014" page 1 of 151 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning “see Stealth Shunning, which is exactly how it is being practiced

Nr. 3 - Witness by Vivien Cooksley, that Kim Pike banned me as she was an administrator of Beyond Cesar Millan group. Because of the POV represented in my „Literature Review“ Anne Springer makes a claim that „people of science are posting in other groups how silly....“ without naming groups or names, while I have a thread in another group where Dr. Rise van and Dr. Melissa Starling praised it (see Appendix 1) & BTW, before publishing my “Literature Review” it was examined for logic and science mistakes by Dr. Rise vanFleet, Dr. Maya Bräm-Dube (behavioral vet) amongst others and found to be in this respect in order, although the form is admittedly different - I did make the disclaimer that this was NOT a work of science. To date, no one has offered any contradictory scientific evidence to that which I presented in it, at least not to me personally. In fact, the blog I linked to in the thread covered many of the same things I had, showing that I’m not alone in this and indicating in my opinion, that there is more to the aggression and slanderous language aginst me than just tht I personally had gotten it wrong. The author of this other blog is herself a PhD (Jennifer Cattet Ph.D.) http://blog.smartanimaltraining.com/2013/12/18/new-research-finds-learned-fears-can-be-inherited/against Anne Springer & Kim Pike Guiding Principles 8 & 9

Ethics Complaint from Leonard Cecil      -      Montag, 10. März 2014" page 2 of 15

Nr. 4 - Making unsubstantiated statements, that I created a fake profile and used it to post in a group. This is a public accusation. She then insinuates that another administrator admitted the „fake“ profile knowing it was fake, insinuating collusion. All without proof. She then states that I „bragged about what he did here.“, again without proof.against Katharine Weber Guiding Principles 8 & 9

Nr. 5 - „Why follow the latest training fade?“ referring to PPG member Grisha Stewart's BAT. I might also mention that Ms. Pike is an employee of Ms. Ali Brown. That is a very personally derogatory remark. against Kim PikeGuiding Principles 8 & 9Ethics Complaint from Leonard Cecil      -      Montag, 10. März 2014" page 3 of 15

Nr. 6 - Witness by Ms. Colleen Meacham of Ms. Pike's accusatory tone in an open group towards an entire community of method-users, lumping them all together into one group with supposedly the same „bad behavior“. This is insulting to all users of this method and even if it is true for the few, unjust and unwarranted for the rest, and unprofessional.against Kim PikeGuiding Principles 8 & 9

Nr. 7 - Ms. Springer admits that she blocked me for a PERSONAL reason and not for any specific dog related reasons (as implied in other posting), and now is carrying over a vendetta type revenge onto dog groups where she is administrator to ban me from them, meaning that I cannot even see content that other non-members can. This is of course +P and certainly not a PPG manner of communicating. And Ms. Robards very correctly calls her on the fact that she can make these accusations behind my back where I cannot defend myself.against Anne SpringerGuiding Principles 8 & 9Ethics Complaint from Leonard Cecil      -      Montag, 10. März 2014" page 4 of 15

Nr. 8 - Once again Anne Springer is attacking the qualifications, intentions, motives and ethical standards of Ms. Stewart for BAT, which BTW is still NOT forbidden by the PPG. against Anne SpringerGuiding Principles 8 & 9

Nr. 9 - Ms. Pike makes accusations and insinuations towards people who train differently, but within the Guidelines of the PPG, going so far as to accuse them of not being „true“ Force Free trainers.against Kim PikeGuiding Principles 8 & 9

Ethics Complaint from Leonard Cecil      -      Montag, 10. März 2014" page 5 of 15

Nr. 10 - Here Ms. Springer makes false accusations of what is going on in „my“ group, falsely or incompletely informed by one of several friends who are or were member (but who never posted in that group) that the “Friday Rant” (See Appendix 2a - 2f) was aimed against her. You will see, that there is not even a side-remark towards her in any of the Friday rant threads. The screens shot above was from her timeline, which is open to the entire world to read, not just her friends, so this was aimed not only at me but at all the over 1000 members of that group!against Anne SpringerGuiding Principles 8 & 9

Nr. 11 - Later in the same thread, Ms. Springer once again mentions specifically this “Rant” and makes once again false accusations. See screen shot Nr. 12 below from my group and the warning she's talking about.against Anne SpringerGuiding Principles 8 & 9

Ethics Complaint from Leonard Cecil      -      Montag, 10. März 2014" page 6 of 15

Nr. 12 - screen shot to Nr. 11 above.

This internet troll is NOT one of the people I’m filing the Ethics Complaint against. One product of this troll can be seen here above:

Ethics Complaint from Leonard Cecil      -      Montag, 10. März 2014" page 7 of 15

Question to Jean Donaldson(is the “buzz topic just coincidence?)

Answer to question above

Nr. 13 - This was the quote I was referring to when I wrote (without naming Ms. Donaldson) about the „kiwi“ in my “literature review”. To insinuate that anyone performing a procedure „competently“ will have no return of fear (despite what the science tells us about this), insinuates, that whose whose dogs do experience spontaneous relapses, renewals or other types of ROF, are simply incompetent, for if they'd been competent in the beginning, it wouldn't have returned. Without getting into the argument itself, this is a HIGHLY insulting comment to make towards ANY behavior technician, especially in public such as she did. And she herself gives no evidence for this claim, one way or the other.against Jean DonaldsonGuiding Principles 8 & 9

Ethics Complaint from Leonard Cecil      -      Montag, 10. März 2014" page 8 of 15

Nr. 14 - This is simply a screen shot of the people I've blocked for one reason or the other. This as proof, that I have not blocked Ms. Springer as she claims and then admits that she DID actually block me (see Nr. 7 above). At a later date however she does revert to claiming that she was blocked; see screen shot of webpage with her thread from her timeline (Appendix 3) – she admitted however in her ethics complaint that this thread WAS indeed about me. (see Appendix 4) - therefore portraying events “inaccurately” by insinuating that I blocked her.against Anne SpringerGuiding Principles 8 & 9

Ethics Complaint from Leonard Cecil      -      Montag, 10. März 2014" page 9 of 15

Nr. 15 - Once again, a insult leveled at PPG member Grisha Stewart, insinuating she studied a little, trained only one dog, etc. Grisha is a CPDT-KA, CTP. Grossly misrepresenting her knowledge and experience in ab obviously vindictive manner.against Anne SpringerGuiding Principles 8 & 9

Nr. 16 - Comparing BAT as a technique in terms of applied ethics to shock collar users is again, personally insulting to those who use BAT, saying that they are as unethical as said shock trainers. Here Ms. Donaldson walks a very thin unprofessional line with what she calls „weasel speak“ see her PPG webinar about the dangers of -R. against Anne Springer & Jean DonaldsonGuiding Principles 8 & 9

Ethics Complaint from Leonard Cecil      -      Montag, 10. März 2014" page 10 of 15

Nr. 17 - Reported to me by a Facebook friend about accusations and insinuations made on-line and during a PPG town hall meeting – comparing Grisha Stewart to Cesar (Millan). Insulting and unprofessional.against Anne SpringerGuiding Principles 8 & 9

Ethics Complaint from Leonard Cecil      -      Montag, 10. März 2014" page 11 of 15

Nr. 18 - Is a screen shot showing the link to the Facebook page of one of my trolls, following me. So the reference to that in the Internet warning Ms. Springer claimed to be about her what referring actually to this troll. See Nr. 10 aboveagainst Anne SpringerGuiding Principles 8 & 9

Ethics Complaint from Leonard Cecil      -      Montag, 10. März 2014" page 12 of 15

Nr. 19 - As in Nrs. 10 and 18, another reference to my group with it's „Rant“ which is supposed to be aimed at her. And as shown in Appendix 2a - 2f wasn’t. against Anne SpringerGuiding Principles 8 & 9

Ethics Complaint from Leonard Cecil      -      Montag, 10. März 2014" page 13 of 15

Nr. 20 - Ms. Springer makes accusations without any basis and is rebuked by Mr. Daar. Simply because someone disagrees with her doesn't mean he doesn't understand the techniques she propagates. He was absolutely correct – seeing evidence and commenting on it is a discussion. Expelling someone from a group who doesn't agree is called „shunning“. As we can see, Mr. Daar was quite polite in the face of Ms. Springers aggressiveness. against Anne SpringerGuiding Principles 8 & 9

Ethics Complaint from Leonard Cecil      -      Montag, 10. März 2014" page 14 of 15

Nr. 21 - And then the result of the above thread - once again, “shunning” simply due to his not being of her POV.

Nr. 22 - Ms. Weber was very aggressive in making false claims about what Grisha Stewart said earlier in the thread and elsewhere. I think Ms. Stewart more elegantly stated what how was false. You will also notice, that Ms. Stewart referenced „my“ so called literature review. No one on Grisha's timeline, which was where this came from, had any problems with that review. See Appendix 1against Katharina WeberGuiding Principles 8 & 9

Note: It might also be important to determine if the above untrue remarks constitute libel against the effected parties: http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander

Ethics Complaint from Leonard Cecil      -      Montag, 10. März 2014" page 15 of 15

Leonard CecilMay 22, 2014

Appendix Nr. 5

April�16,�2014��TO:� Leonard�Cecil�VIA:�� Electronic�Mail��Dear�Mr.�Cecil,��The�Pet�Professional�Guild’s�Ethics�Committee�has�thoroughly�considered�the�multiͲfaceted�complaint�(2014Ͳ3)�you�presented�on�March�10.�In�three�of�the�22�included�allegations�(No.�4,�No.�7,�No.�11),�the�Committee�found�merit�to�proceed�with�an�investigation�of�violation�of�PPG�Guiding�Principles.�The�defendants�will�be�notified�and�given�seven�days�to�respond�to�the�allegations.�After�the�response�period�has�ended,�the�Ethics�Committee�will�make�a�determination�on�whether�further�action�should�be�taken.��The�Committee’s�findings�on�each�of�the�22�allegations�contained�within�the�complaint�are�as�follows:��Allegation�No.� Defendant�(s)� Finding�

1� Anne�Springer�There�is�no�evidence�of�violation�of�any�PPG�Guiding�

Principle.�Every�person�has�a�right�to�choose�with�whom�they�wish�to�communicate.�

2� Anne�Springer�

This�would�merit�investigation�if�the�complainant�were�the�subject�of�the�proffered�information,�but�third�parties�may�not�make�complaints�on�behalf�of�others�for�evidentiary�and�confidentiality�reasons.�

3� Anne�Springer�Kim�Pike�

Springer�makes�no�reference�to�a�person,�only�a�literature�review�which,�by�its�very�nature,�invites�comment�and�

debate.�There�is�no�reference�to�Ms.�Pike,�or�proof�of�any�violation�by�her,�in�the�proffered�evidence.�

4� Katharine�Weber�Potential�violation�of�GP�8.�The�reference�to�“Leonard”�

reasonably�identified�the�complainant�and�accuses�him�of�being�unethical.�

5� Kim�Pike��

This�appears�to�be�a�discussion�of�training�principles,�and�on�its�face,�not�a�violation.�But�it�also�does�not�mention�the�

complainant,�and�third�parties�many�not�make�complaints�on�behalf�of�others�for�evidentiary�and�confidentiality�reasons.�

6� Kim�Pike�

There�is�no�violation�against�the�complainant.�There�is�no�proof�in�the�evidence�proffered�that�Ms.�Pike�has�said�

anything�unprofessional.�It�is�not�a�violation�of�the�GPs�to�discuss�methods.�

7� Anne�Springer�

It�is�not�a�violation�of�GPs�to�block�a�person�on�social�media.�There�is�a�potential�violation�of�GPs�8�&�9�if�the�person�of�whom�she�is�talking�can�be�ascertained.�Ms.�Robard’s�

comment�in�the�thread�identified�with�the�subject�of�Ms.�Springer’s�comments�as�“Leonard,”�which�can�be�reasonably�

assumed�to�be,�in�this�context,�the�complainant.�

8� Anne�Springer�

A�complainant�may�not�make�a�complaint�on�behalf�of�third�party.�Additionally,�this�is�discussion�of�methods�and�a�critique�of�published�work.�Authors�should�expect�

discussion/debate/peer�review.�

9� Kim�Pike�

No�individual�is�named.��Additionally,�the�evidenced�proffered�is�not�in�context�and�vague.�“That�type�of�

behavior,”�reference�is�ambiguous,�so�it�is�unclear�if�she�is�being�unprofessional�in�her�assessment/opinion�that�it�is�

“mocking,�ignorant�and�destructive.”�

10� Anne�Springer� There�is�no�information�to�identify�an�individual,�and�it�is�not�a�violation�of�PPG�GPs�to�block�someone�on�social�media.�

11� Anne�Springer�The�apparent�derisive�tone�in�this�proffer,�along�with�the�identifier�“LC”�by�PA�Licetti,�raises�this�to�a�potential�

violation�of�PPG�GPs�8�&�9.�

12� ?� This�appeared�to�the�Ethics�Committee�as�supporting�evidence�for�Allegation�11.�

13� Jean�Donaldson�The�complainant�is�not�named.�Further,�this�is�a�discussion�of�training�methods�and�practices�and�does�not�violate�PPG�

Guiding�Principles.�

14� Anne�Springer�The�evidence�proffered�does�nothing�to�show�any�violation�by�Ms.�Springer�and,�to�reiterate,�it�is�not�a�violation�of�PPG�

GPs�to�block�someone�on�social�media.�

15� Anne�Springer�

The�complainant�is�not�named,�and�third�parties�many�not�make�complaints�on�behalf�of�others�for�evidentiary�and�confidentiality�reasons.�Further,�this�is�a�discussion�of�

training�methods�and�practices�and�does�not�violate�PPG�Guiding�Principles.�

16� Anne�Springer�Jean�Donaldson�

Ms.�Springer�does�not�name�the�complainant,�and�third�parties�many�not�make�complaints�on�behalf�of�others�for�evidentiary�and�confidentiality�reasons.�Further,�this�is�a�discussion�of�training�methods�and�practices�and�does�not�

violate�PPG�Guiding�Principles.�It�is�unclear�why�Ms.�Donaldson�is�named,�as�there�is�no�evidence�proffered�from�

her.�

17� Anne�Springer�

There�is�no�proof�in�the�evidence�proffered�that�Ms.�Springer�did�what�the�writers�say�(this�is�“hearsay”�evidence.)�Further,�The�complainant�is�not�named,�and�third�parties�many�not�make�complaints�on�behalf�of�others�for�evidentiary�and�

confidentiality�reasons.�

18� Anne�Springer� This�appears�to�be�proffered�evidence�of�a�prior�violation,�but�does�not�constitute�a�violation�by�Ms.�Springer.�

19� Anne�Springer� There�is�no�reference�to�the�complainant�and�no�violation�of�PPG�GPs.�

20� Anne�Springer�

This�would�merit�investigation�if�the�complainant�were�the�subject�of�the�proffered�information,�but�third�parties�many�not�make�complaints�on�behalf�of�others�for�evidentiary�and�confidentiality�reasons.�

21� Anne�Springer� The�evidence�proffered�(hearsay)�does�not�show�proof�of�any�violation�of�PPG�GPs�by�Ms.�Springer.�

22� Katharine�Weber�

A�complainant�may�not�make�a�complaint�on�behalf�of�third�party.�Additionally,�this�is�discussion�of�methods�and�a�critique�of�published�work.�Authors�should�expect�

discussion/debate/peer�review.��The�point�in�the�process�to�provide�additional�evidence�about�the�defendants�is�now�closed.��No�further�evidence�will�be�considered.��As�always,�the�Ethics�Committee�process�is�strictly�confidential�and�this�complaint,�in�whole�or�part,�should�not�be�discussed�with�anyone�outside�of�the�Ethics�Committee.�Violation�of�confidentiality�is�subject�to�sanction�and�dismissal�of�the�complaint,�in�whole�or�in�part,�as�compromised.��If�you�have�any�questions,�please�do�not�hesitate�to�contact�me.��Very�best�regards,���Catherine�M.�Zehner,�Chair�Ethics�Committee�The�Pet�Professional�Guild�����

Leonard CecilMay 22, 2014

Appendix Nr. 6

See AllSPONSORED

English (US) · Privacy · Terms · Cookies · MoreFacebook © 2014

Plastic Surgery Gone Badbeautytipsbyjen.com

The Worst Celebrity PlasticSurgery Disasters You WillEver See. You Will BeAmazed!

5 Worst Foods for Skinclinique.com

Dermatologists say toavoid these foods entirely.Here's a list of foods tonever eat.

Kaiser Permanente®medicare.kaiserpermanente.org

It's not too late to switch toa 2014 5-Star MEDICAREhealth plan. Learn more.

80% off NINE WEST Shoesbeyondtherack.com

See how this uniquewebsite can get you NineWest, Clarks, GEOX andmore at up to 80% off

Beauty To Beast?staying-youthful.com

See the shocking plasticsurgery disaster thatruined this formerHollywood beauty's face.

C0VERGIRL Dumps EIIenspas.ie

She feels guilty for hidingthe truth for so many years.Find out more here

Debby McMullenFebruary 22 · Edited ·

Quadrant police: STFU. Seriously, you are not gaining any fans. You arelosing them. The ruthlessness that some of you are about sticking to exactquadrants rather than force is making you look uneducated. Quadrantsbounce around in any given scenario. The deliberate use of force isdifferent entirely than quadrant precision. I honestly feel like I should cleanmy eyes out and take a shower after I read some of theblogs/articles/comments from the supposedly positive (but not withpeople) trainers. At one time, reward based training was viewed as someof you view anything but CC/DS. First do no harm. That includes shuttingyour mind down. Let's try an analogy. If I am standing near a bunch ofspiders and I feel safe that they can't hurt me, any amount of stuffing mewith red velvet cupcakes is not ever going to make me like those stupidspiders. That would be a serious failure of CC/DS. And stupid to evenattempt it. But allowing me to feel safe as well as having the option to walkaway and not engage with said spiders is sure going to go a lot further toallowing me to be near them without freaking out than the red velvetcupcakes. And if you think otherwise, you are fooling yourself. Safety. It'sall about safety to many dogs. Stop the division. No one is making you usethe methods you dislike. But stop acting like others are incompetent andyou are better than us. It's time. Get over it.

Like · Comment · Share

Follow

Niki Tudge, Pamela Dennison and 45 others like this.

2 shares

Sue Painter-Thorne Agreed. I'm not a professional trainer. I have no dog inthis fight (sorry for the pun), but I am so tired of reading the passive aggressiveposts of dog trainer FB friends that seem, even to me, to be thinly veiledattempts to continue these debates. It's tiresome and unprofessional. So I juststop reading their posts and am hoping it will stop soon.February 22 at 1:11am · Like · 8

Bonnie Hess Is there some group that is continuing on with this battle (of thewills) over BAT vs CC/DS? It is an ignorant (not saying that to sound mean, buttruth in that it is uneducated/unwise) argument. It makes utterly no sense. On somany levels. To help a person get over a phobia, that person must feel safe andas though they have some control over that safety. Same with dogs. It is soimportant to confidence.February 22 at 1:20am · Like · 10

Debby McMullen It is individuals and some blog posts by the idiots standingon soapboxes. It's the same old individuals.February 22 at 1:26am · Like · 3

Niki Tudge For me its more an issue of enough now. If people do not shareyour opinions then discuss it respectfully and move on.February 22 at 1:27am · Like · 9

Sue Painter-Thorne That's what I'm saying too Niki. I'm fine with peopledisagreeing and even doing these fine distinctions of the quandrants--becauseit helps me understand the quadrants better (and everything is about me! )But it's gone on far too long now. And I am losing respect for folks I oncerespected. It's like they're caught up in this "fight" and can't move past the cycle.February 22 at 1:30am · Edited · Like · 7

Debby McMullen It doesn't even need to be brought up anymore, IMO.What's the point? Those of us who support safety are not starting theconversations. We are the ones being bashed like we are idiots.February 22 at 1:30am · Like · 6

Bonnie Hess Well, an intelligent discussion of "the quadrants" is fine, but Ido think Skinner et all would be bashing their heads if they heard some of thearguments for, say never to use negative reinforcement in a contingency. Wemay discover, when analyzing d... See MoreFebruary 22 at 1:35am · Like · 11

Beth McGonigal I think the sign of someone who is truly educated in theirfield (whatever it may be), needs to possess three qualities: 1) The ability to see situations from different perspectives of both otherprofessionals and their clients 2) To assess each situation separately, rather than as a "whole" or a "rule", andto be flexible as to the needs of that particular client3) To never go against their morals.

No professionals will ever agree on everything. But its important that positivetrainers stand together for the greater good.February 22 at 1:41am · Like · 7

Debby McMullen Exactly Bonnie. The ebb and flow of what is going on cango back and forth. Not deliberately using force or fear is different from atechnical presence of negative reinforcement that was not preceded by apositive punisher.February 22 at 1:42am · Like · 6

Dennis Fehling Negative reinforcement happens every time you put on acollar, harness, gentle leader, halti, choke chain, prong collar. There is no suchthing as purely positive and never will be unless we all move to a tropical islandwhere there is no pain, no hunger, no fear, no fighting, no stupidity. Not going tohappen in our life time especially the stupid part February 22 at 2:17am · Edited · Like · 11

Chat (3)

Lisa Home Find FriendsSearch for people, places and things 4

Beth McGonigal I completely agree, Dennis.February 22 at 2:17am · Like · 3

Tamara A Howard Quadrant Queens at it again? Next up: HumaneHierarchy. My humble opinion: what's punishing and reinforcing is up to thedog. We don't know when either begin or end so let's all step off of our soapboxes and start listening to the dog!February 22 at 2:50am · Like · 10

Dennis Fehling Great point Tamara A Howard although the dog will usuallytell you if they are being punished in some way as we all know by the way theymove. If they are engaged, loose body, eating food softly usually is a prettygood indicator that things are going pretty well or the dog. I do agree that weneed to really pay close attention the dog because in the end when we seethem all again in the afterlife if you believe you will see your dog in the afterlifethey will tell us that we all had it wrong and their needs were never truly metand they were never really fulfilled and they just went along for the ridebecause they loved us. After all we really do not know if they enjoy the trainingprocess other then they are eating food and doing what we ask them to do, dothey really love agility or nose work or Trieball? who knows in my heart it ismostly for us and really has nothing to do with them. I have had clients withAgility dogs that have been attacked, injured and scolded because theymessed up even had one agility trainer in the area who she says that shespecializes in remedial behavior agility. It took my client 4 years to realize thathis dog never liked agility because every time his dog went to agility she gotattacked, or attacked another dog. So the last so called remedial behavioragility trainer pulled a Cesar Milan on the great dog when the dog attacked aborder puppy for sniffing in the same area. This woman 15 minutes later told myclient that his dog needed to be put in a calm submissive state so she threw thedog on her back, jammed her thumb in the dogs neck and held her there untilmy client finally said" ok this shit is not working for my dog" so we got togetherand found that his dog really seemed to enjoy nose work and has excelled in itwith no reactivity issues towards other dogs. Granted we did a lot of work priorto her joining my wife's nose work class. this dog was screaming inside andtelling everyone that she did not like agility for over 4 years and no onelistened....February 22 at 3:02am · Edited · Like · 9

Debby McMullen Poor baby!!!February 22 at 3:06am · Like · 2

Dennis Fehling On a positive note about the trainer she is coming to aconsult with one of her clients to learn more effective positive ways of workingwith aggression............February 22 at 3:08am · Like · 7

Miranda Jane Delnevo I love this. Brilliant!February 22 at 4:25am · Like · 6

Kim Campbell PERFECT! Thank you!February 22 at 5:12am · Like · 4

Hilary Lane Great statement. I've left many FB groups because of the samearguments. You said this so well.February 22 at 5:27am · Like · 5

Tamara A Howard Great comment Dennis Fehling! A very wise man oncesaid to me "it's about making it worthwhile for them to play our silly little games" I indeed believe i will see my former pets in the afterlife, I so hope so. It's whatkeeps me going.On P+ as you... See MoreFebruary 22 at 6:05am · Like · 5

Justin Palazzo-Orr 'Excess in anything is sickness' Myomoto MusashiFebruary 22 at 6:55am · Like · 6

Carole Orr Yes, yes, yes!February 22 at 9:22am · Like · 2

Leon Coombs Great post Debby.February 22 at 9:34am · Like · 2

Debby McMullen Rise, I shared your post with pleasure as well. But you arequite a bit more polite than I am.February 22 at 12:27pm · Like · 4

Ada Simms I have left some groups because of it. I remembering asking aquestion, also stating somethings I have already tried (all force free) and theanswer from one elite trainer was "What were you thinking???". The personmight as well said "That was stupid!"February 22 at 4:27pm · Like · 3

Noel Ritter This is the voice of common sense! Brilliant!February 22 at 7:30pm · Like · 3

Write a comment...

Leonard CecilMay 22, 2014

Appendix Nr. 7

Mr.�Ms.�Debbie�McMullen��Via:�Electronic�Mail��April�2,�2014��Dear�Ms.�McMullen,��This�letter�is�to�inform�you�that�an�Ethics�Complaint�was�filed�against�you�on�March�20,�2014�by�Ms.�Heidi�Steinbeck.���Specifically,�the�complaint�alleges�that�you�violated�the�Pet�Professional�Guild�Guiding�Principle�No.�8,�to�“ensure�all�communications�are�professional�and�based�in�fact.�When�discussing�industry�practices,�trends�or�issues,�members�will�limit�discussion�to�practices�and�consequences�rather�than�the�individuals�using�them�thereby�ensuring�informed,�professional�and�civil�exchanges�that�enrich�members�and�the�industry�of�forceͲfree�pet�professionals.”��The�details�of�the�allegation�are�attached.�Please�review�the�attached�complaint�and�provide,�within�three�calendar�days,�any�information�you�may�have�to�refute�the�allegation(s).��The�Ethics�Committee�Complaint�process�is�strictly�confidential.��Any�discussion�of�the�proceedings�by�any�party�will�be�considered�an�additional�violation�of�the�PPG�Guiding�Principles.��Please�note�that�the�Ethics�Committee�reviews�only�allegations�filed�in�a�formal�complaint�to�the�Committee.��The�Ethics�Committee�does�not�initiate�ethics�complaints�except�in�instances�where�the�confidentiality�of�the�ethics�review�process�is�breached�by�one�of�the�involved�parties.��Regards,����Catherine�M.�Zehner,�Chair�Ethics�Committee�Pet�Professional�Guild�