onoway Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 http://in.news.yahoo.com/usda-fines-missouri-family-90k-selling-few-rabbits-170245918.html and updatehttp://dramaga.info/missouri-man-%E2%80%98not-happy%E2%80%99-with-revised-usda-offer.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 The headline reads:USDA fines Missouri family $90k for selling a few rabbits without a license[/Quote] The second paragraph beginsBut now, selling a few hundred rabbits over two years has provoked the heavy hand of the federal government [/Quote] The difference between "few rabbits" and "few hundred rabbits' is the difference between a rabbit hobby and a rabbit business. It strains credulity that someone raising hundreds of rabbits over a period of years for sale to pet stores never thought that perhaps there are some regulations governing this and it would be best to check it out. Since the article is careless about "few" versus "few hundred", it would be interesting to know their idea of few. Maybe 85 is few? So 8,500 rabbits? The fine would be about ten dollars a rabbit. High, but they were sold for how much? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Few relevant facts The family seems to have sold 619 rabbits for somewhere between $4,000 and $5,000 gross revenue.This means that there are selling the rabbits for about $7.25 eachThey claimed to have netted about $300 over two years (or about 50 cents a rabbit) Personally, I don't have any problem with the government cracking down on the family for running an illegal business.Land of the free doesn't mean that you get to ignore laws without paying a price... I agree that the fine seems disproportionate. At the same time, there is a big difference between an opening offer and the eventual settlement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 The headline reads: The second paragraph begins The difference between "few rabbits" and "few hundred rabbits' is the difference between a rabbit hobby and a rabbit business. It strains credulity that someone raising hundreds of rabbits over a period of years for sale to pet stores never thought that perhaps there are some regulations governing this and it would be best to check it out. Since the article is careless about "few" versus "few hundred", it would be interesting to know their idea of few. Maybe 85 is few? So 8,500 rabbits? The fine would be about ten dollars a rabbit. High, but they were sold for how much? Scared they would face a small fine for a part-time business that had only resulted in about $4,000-$5,000 in sales and $200-$400 of profit, the Dollarhites agreed during the meeting to immediately suspend their business, which the inspector said would help their case.[\quote] “My client rejects that proposal,” wrote their attorney, Richard Anderson, in a May 19 letter, noting that according to USDA’s own literature, its 6,000 annual enforcement cases average “a penalty of $333.33 per case, and yet you contend it would be appropriate my client tender a penalty of $90,643.00.”[\quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Ok, you guys read more of it than I did, my bad. I got to the few hundred part and decided it sounded like a business to me. At best it's a not very good business I guess. I still think that if I were raising rabbits and selling them to a pet store I would very quickly look into any regulations that apply. It has never been my plan to raise, buy, or sell a rabbit. So I don't know anything about it, but $7 per is a lot lower than I would have expected. Dealing with 600 rabbits for a net profit of $200? I would rather sell Avon. Actually I did, when I was 17, sell Watkins products door to door for a while. Thinking back, maybe the rabbit business is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 I think the ideal solution is to raise rabbits and sell them door-to-door for cash and thus give the government the business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Government's first rule: "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine also". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 The low revenue is apparently because they never really intended for this to be a money-making project. It was a hobby that just grew bigger. They had a bunch of rabbits, and local pet stores needed rabbits. They were raising them anway, so as long as they did better than break even they were presumably happy, and I'm sure the pet store was ecstatic. But as far as the USDA is concerned, once you start selling to a retailer you become a wholesaler, and come under their jurisdiction, regardless of the scale of the business. But there's certainly something wrong with the process when the size of the fine is 10 times the total money that changed hands. It's one thing to try to set an example, and another to go way out of bounds like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Strongly suspect we are not being given the whole story here. The tone of the articles seems quite biased in favor of the family being fined. Their background seems constantly changing... they raise rabbits to be sold as food? But they own and run a computer store and have done so for years? It was just a few rabbits, but now it's hundreds? And why does the government want them to "admit USDA has jurisdiction" as part of a settlement? I suspect that there is some sort of civil disobedience thing going on, where rather than challenge the size of the fine in court the family is trying to challenge USDA's jurisdiction or constitutionality on political grounds. The size of the fine (which USDA is apparently willing to reduce if the family admits culpability) may reflect this. In any case I doubt we are being told everything. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Strongly suspect we are not being given the whole story here. The tone of the articles seems quite biased in favor of the family being fined. Their background seems constantly changing... they raise rabbits to be sold as food? But they own and run a computer store and have done so for years? It was just a few rabbits, but now it's hundreds? And why does the government want them to "admit USDA has jurisdiction" as part of a settlement? This "horrific" incident is being flogged by the Drudge Report and the Daily Caller...Do you really expect anything different from either of these worthies? I share AWM concern that were getting a rather biased account of what's going on... Personally, I'd be most interested in understanding the relationship between meat rabbits and pet stores. I happily eat a fair amount of rabbit. I also have friends who have pet rabbits.BIG differences between the species involved http://www.survival-homestead.com/rabbit-breeds.htmlhttp://www.pet-rabbit-care-information.com/best-rabbit-breed.htm Also, I used to have some pet rats and was actively involved in rat rescue projects in MA. I've seen more than my share of horror stories where breeders where raising rats under hideous conditions (primarily to sell as snake food). I have very little sympathy for this type of entrepeneur... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 It was just a few rabbits, but now it's hundreds?Well, rabbits breed like rabbits. :) Yes, stories like this are always biased. On the other hand, sometimes bureaucracies really do screw up, like levying large fines when someone leaves a 10-cent balance outstanding for months or years. Or like the lawsuit against McDonalds when a woman burned herself on the coffee. Everyone said "how could they find for the woman, everyone knows that coffee is hot?". But it turned out that the coffee was actually much hotter than it was supposed to be, and that was the basis of ruling against McD's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onoway Posted July 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Actually the story was linked to a number of different sites; I read a number of them and then just linked to the last one, since they all said much the same thing. I doubt very much any sort of civil disobedience since a) it had never been intended as a major business and b)the family got rid of all the rabbits/equipment as soon as they were told there were questions about the legality of it all. As far as the conditions of the rabbits; the USDA first found out about the Dollarhites when they were inspecting the rabbits at a petting zoo (the USDA were perfectly content with the rabbits' condition there) and they spotted the invoice for the rabbits which led them to these people. The Dollarhites had been supplying the rabbits on an ongoing basis for the petting zoo as baby animals seem to be the norm for petting zoos.The USDA inspector apparently told the owners that the rabbits looked healthy and well cared for but the cages were 1/4 inch too small.Apparently though, these had been bought as the standard cage size designed for large rabbits and by then they weren't raising meat rabbits anymore but dwarf ones for the petting zoo. In any case..What has been reported is the the USDA was said to have told them was that they were to be made an example of. What made me think of this in the first place was the thread on illegal immigrants and the non enforcement of laws on the books. If they ever did decide to crack down, it would make sense to tackle some small outfit rather than a big one which might have a major impact on their local economy. I wondered if that was what was going on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 Or like the lawsuit against McDonalds when a woman burned herself on the coffee. Everyone said "how could they find for the woman, everyone knows that coffee is hot?". But it turned out that the coffee was actually much hotter than it was supposed to be, and that was the basis of ruling against McD's. Overheated coffee would be around 10th from the top on the list of things I would sue McDonald's for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.