tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25037502.post881557693546980523..comments2024-03-16T04:40:25.964-07:00Comments on LA Animal Watch: Re-opening Allegations of Hayden Act ViolationsEd Muzikahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13214241089861837159noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25037502.post-9508144685025915762007-07-08T16:21:00.000-07:002007-07-08T16:21:00.000-07:00I am outraged!!!But not surprised...And grateful t...I am outraged!!!<BR/><BR/>But not surprised...<BR/><BR/>And grateful that this information is being made public<BR/><BR/>This is a dangerous man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25037502.post-24479255053166877952007-07-07T10:02:00.000-07:002007-07-07T10:02:00.000-07:00From STK: A source at NYCACC - who wishes to remai...From STK: A source at NYCACC - who wishes to remain anonymous - supplied the following information on Ed Boks and how he manipulates data:<BR/><BR/>* 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.<BR/><BR/>* 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.<BR/><BR/>* He kept asking us to make changes to the system and we wouldn't. We finally just left.<BR/><BR/>* 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.<BR/><BR/>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.)<BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>* 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.<BR/><BR/>* 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.<BR/><BR/>* 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.<BR/><BR/>*By manipulating the reporting and ranking systems, Ed deceptively took credit for the resultant appearance of a substantial "decline" in the death rate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com