Re-opening Allegations of Hayden Act Violations

In February I posted that LAAS may have violated the Hayden Act by killing 1,155 healthy animals within the first four days of holding, which was prohibited by the Hayden Act.

Boks responded in Rumor vs. Truth # 3, that of the 809 cats listed as healthy and killed within 4 days, 453 were either sick or suffering and were killed that first day or in the next four days. With dogs, 276 of the 346 healthy dogs killed, were relisted as sick or suffering and then killed. That is, over 60% of healthy cats and dogs were killed because their status changed within the day of impound or soon after. Most of the others killed were neonates.

The charge came in today that Boks was having NYC personnel go in and change the condition of animals when Boks was in NY, then euthanizing them.

I think someone should take a close look at the total records of the 1,145 animals listed as healthy on intake to see how, when and why they went from being healthy, to unhealthy or suffering. Boks says there are photographs of the treatment records that would validate that the animals were sick (Some with an infectious disease) or suffering. I am not sure, but it appears he said there also were photos of the animals.

The allegation today:

“Boks did the exact same thing in NY.

The animal would come in and they'd give it a health rating, 1-5. I think "1" was healthy.

Anyway the animal would get sick in the shelter. Boks wanted the techs to change the initial rating of "healthy" to "unhealthy" so he could say all the animals he killed were sick and came in sick.

I can't believe he said "very few healthy animals are killed." So 38% of all animals that come into the shelter are unhealthy? Bullshit.”


From Rumor vs. Truth #3:


For the period of January 1, 2006, through December 1, 2006, records for 809 cats had the Intake condition as Apparently Healthy, but were shown as Euthanized within four or less days.

Summary of Findings

10 Euthanized by Private Vet After Exam Strays sent on AFE same or next day

2 Behavior - Biting –

Owner Surrendered and Requested Euthanasia Euthanized same day 23

Feral, Euthanized on fourth day, i.e. after third day, as permitted by law (see below)

Most were strays, some were Owner Surrender
103 Irremediably suffering (Selection of Apparently Healthy was done with only superficial visual check.)

353 Medical condition (many due to infectious nature of illness)
Selection of Apparently Healthy was done with only superficial visual check 1 Shown in Subtype as Time/Space reasons, but examination of the Medical Treatment form (confirmed by photo) showed sick, (or) unweaned kitten.

Evident error in completion of Euthanasia portion of kennel record

317 Unweaned Majority show multiple number series (2-5 sequential numbers) and came in between April and July


As an observation, after reviewing several hundred kennel records, there is a pattern in regard to cats as coming in cages and boxes, and often photographed that way, which render it believable that in passing an animal could be deemed apparently healthy, but found sick when the Veterinary Technician tries to pull the animal out of the box or cage.
Unweaned kittens were often shown as Apparently Healthy, which is likely the case, but were recorded as unweaned in other classification fields. Without sufficient rescues or foster volunteers, unweaned simply cannot be sustained, and it is inhumane to allow them to fail through lack of nursing.

Well, Boks said there are photographs of the medical treatment records, that confirm that hundreds of healthy animals were not and were then killed.

Let us see the records and the photos!


Anonymous said...

From STK: A source at NYCACC - who wishes to remain anonymous - supplied the following information on Ed Boks and how he manipulates data:

* Ed was obsessed with trying to make the data fit his story rather than trying to actually get real results. He did this by changing the way he kept and reported statistics.

* He stopped reporting owner requested euthanasia. When you change the reporting and don't tell anyone, it looks like the numbers of impounds and deaths have come down, but they haven't. And Ed never told anyone he changed the way NYCACC was reporting data.

* He kept asking us to make changes to the system and we wouldn't. We finally just left.

* He also reported only end status of animals. NYCACC has a rating system of 1 through 5 for each dog or cat who comes in. A healthy dog or cat is a "1" while a supposed unadoptable dog or cat was a rating "5." Dogs and cats with different problems can be 2, 3 or 4. We always reported status based on intake. So, for example, if a dog came in healthy but got kennel cough because our facility was dirty or lack of care and his status changed to a 3 or a 4, when we killed that dog, we still reported him as a 1 because he was a healthy, adoptable dog and we made him or allowed him to get sick.

But Ed forced us to change that to a 3 or 4. Basically, by reporting the dog as a 3 or 4, he created the impression that the dog was always unadoptable. That way, it looked like the number of adoptable animals being saved increased, when all we were doing was reclassifying them as unadoptable and comparing apples to oranges. (By the way, kennel cough is highly treatable and should not classify a dog as unadoptable. In addition, kennel cough is non-fatal and self-delimiting, meaning that the condition will resolve without medical intervention. An animal with the condition should still be made available for adoption.)

Also, I was at a conference when Ed was at Maricopa where he said kennel cough was treatable and that he treated all those dogs. In NY, he was calling them "unadoptable."

* If Ed had kept the same reporting the way it was always reported before he got there, there would have basically been no change at all. But that didn't fit Ed's story so he just changed the way we reported things but didn't tell people. That way he could take credit for all the death rate decline of adoptable animals when that did not occur.

* Chameleon reports data based on Crystal reports. If you look at the written formulas under Marilyn (Blohm) who used to run NYCACC and Ed, you'll see that they are different.

* He also liked to report per capita euthanasia rates which actually unfairly help big cities. According to per capita rates, New York City is basically No Kill, but that isn't true.

*By manipulating the reporting and ranking systems, Ed deceptively took credit for the resultant appearance of a substantial "decline" in the death rate.

Anonymous said...

I am outraged!!!

But not surprised...

And grateful that this information is being made public

This is a dangerous man.