USDA Fines Family up to $4 million for Selling Rabbits

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Family Facing $4 Million in Fines for Selling Bunnies

by Bob McCarty



Almost nine months after a Missouri dairy was ordered to stop selling cheese made from raw milk, I share details of another hare-raising story from the Show-Me State: John Dollarhite and his wife Judy of tiny Nixa, Mo., have been told by the USDA that, by Monday, they must pay a fine exceeding $90,000. If they don’t pay that fine, they could face additional fines of almost $4 million. Why? Because they sold more than $500 worth of bunnies — $4,600 worth to be exact — in a single calendar year.


About six years ago, the Dollarhites wanted to teach their young teenage son responsibility and the value of the dollar. So they rescued a pair of rabbits — one male and one female — and those rabbits did what rabbits do; they reproduced. Before long, things were literally hopping on the three-acre homestead 30 miles south of Springfield, and Dollarvalue Rabbitry was launched as more of a hobby than a business.
“We’d sell ‘em for 10 or 15 dollars a piece,” John said during a phone interview Tuesday afternoon, comparing the venture to a kid running a lemonade stand. In addition, they set up a web site and posted a “Rabbits for Sale” sign in their front yard. Most customers, however, came via word of mouth.
In the early stages, some of the bunnies were raised and sold for their meat. Much further down the road, John said, they determined it more profitable to sell live bunnies at four weeks old than to feed bunnies for 12 weeks and then sell them as meat.
“We started becoming the go-to people” for rabbits in the Springfield area, John said. “If you wanted a rabbit, you’d go to Dollarvalue Rabbitry.” He added that the family even made the local television news just before Easter in 2008 for a report about the care and feeding of “Easter bunnies.”

Initially, the Dollarhites sold the large, white, pink-eyed variety of rabbits. Eventually, however, they switched to selling a couple of different varieties of miniature rabbits, the mating pairs of which were purchased from breeders across the state. Not only did their “show-quality” miniatures reproduce well, but they ate less and seemed to be more popular with theme park visitors and retail buyers.
During the summer of 2009, the Dollarhites bought the rabbitry from their son who had grown tired of managing it. They paid him what he asked for it, $200. Things kept growing, however, and the Dollarhite’s landed a pair of big accounts in 2009.
A well-known Branson theme park, Silver Dollar City, asked the Dollarhites to have them provide four-week-old bunnies per week to their petting zoo May through September. When the bunnies turned six weeks old, they were sold to park visitors. The Springfield location of a national pet store chain, Petland, purchased rabbits from the Dollarhites as well.
In the fall of 2009, the theme park deliveries ended for the year and the Dollarhites scaled back their operation. At about the same time, the folks at Petland asked the Dollarhites to raise guinea pigs that the store would purchase from them. No big deal.
By the year’s end, the Dollarhites had moved approximately 440 rabbits and grossed about $4,600 for a profit of approximately $200 — enough, John said, to provide the family “pocket money” to do things such as eat out at Red Lobster once in a while. That was better than the loss they experienced in 2008.

Then some unexpected matters began demanding their attention.
It’s an understatement to describe the Dollarhites as being “beyond surprised” when, in the fall of 2009, a female inspector from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed up at the front door of the family home, wanting to do a “spot inspection” of their rabbitry. She said she had come across Dollarhite Rabbitry invoices while inspecting the petting zoo at Silver Dollar City.
“She did not tell us that we were in violation of any laws, rules, anything whatsoever,” John said, explaining that the inspector said she just wanted to see what type of operation they had. Having nothing to hide or any reason to fear they were doing anything wrong, the Dollarhites allowed the inspection to proceed.
John said he had to go to work at the family’s computer store, so Judy took the inspector to the back of their property where the rabbits were raised. There, the inspector began running the width of her finger across the cage and told the Dollarhites they would need to replace the cage, because it was a quarter-inch too small and, therefore, did not meet federal regulations.
Such a requirement came as a shock to the Dollarhites, because they had just invested in new cages to ensure the bunnies had a healthy amount of space to develop, John explained. Though raising dwarf breed varieties of rabbits which require less space, they had opted to purchase cages designed for “large breed rabbits” so the dwarfs would have plenty of room. All for naught.
Not only was the cage too small, according to the inspector, but she noted a small rust spot on a feeder and cited it as being out of compliance. When the Dollarhites told the inspector that rabbit urine causes the cages to rust and that they worked hard to keep the rabbits cages in top shape, she told them it didn’t matter. The rust spot would count as an infraction.
The inspector then asked how the cages were sanitized, John said, and Judy explained how she moved the bunnies to travel carriers and powerwashed the cages, using bleach when necessary. Afterward, she allowed the cages to dry in the sun before putting the bunnies back inside them.
The Dollarhites’ practice was much safer than that used by some breeders who used blow torches to burn hair and manure from the cages — a practice that can lead to rusting metal and produce toxic fumes from burning metal.
During the course of the spot inspection, John said, the inspector asked his wife if she and John would like to have their operation certified by USDA. Judy said she wasn’t sure and asked what certification would entail and if it would help them sell more rabbits. The inspector responded, telling her it would involve monthly inspections and was completely voluntary. The inspection ended with the inspector telling Judy that the Dollarhites rabbits looked healthy and well-cared for.
After the inspection, the Dollarhites didn’t hear from the USDA again until January 2010, John said, when he received a phone call from a Kansas City-based investigator from the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
“He called us and said, ‘I need to have a meeting with you and your wife,’” John recalled.
After explaining that he asked the investigator to come after the workday at the computer store had ended, John said he asked the investigator about the purpose of the meeting,
“He said, ‘Well, it’s because you’re selling rabbits and you’ve exceeded more than $500 dollars in a year,’” John said, “and I went, ‘Okay, what does that have to do with anything?’”
John said the investigator refused to discuss details over the phone and made it clear that rejecting his request for a meeting would be a costly error in judgment.
When Judy asked if they should have an attorney present, the investigator responded, saying, “Well, that might be a good thing.”
“At that point, we kind of set back, (wondering) what in the world is going on,” John said. Then he found an attorney who is also a farmer.
“I didn’t want a ‘city slicker,’” said John, a farmer himself until 1996 when he sold his farm to build a home in Nixa. “I wanted someone that had been around the agriculture and farm business.”
John found a guy and they met for the first time a couple of days later — at the same time both met the APHIS investigator in person at John’s home.
“The first thing (the investigator) said was ‘My name is so and so, I’ve been in the USDA for 30-plus years, and I’ve never lost a case,’” John recalled, continuing. “He said, ‘I’m not here to debate the law, interpret the law or discuss the law, I’m here just to do an investigation.’”
John said the investigator went on to explain that he would ask questions, write a report based on the answers and send that report to his superiors at the USDA regional office in Colorado Springs, Colo. The entire process was suppose to take about a month, and John was told to contact the regional office if he had not heard anything in six weeks.
“At this point in time, we were still not knowing anything about the law he was talking about,” John explained, adding that his rabbitry had never had any issues with any animal welfare agencies.
Eight weeks passed, and John decided to call Colorado Springs. Immediately, he was given the number to a USDA office in the nation’s capitol. He called the new number, and the lady he reached there was blunt, John said.
“She said, ‘Well, Mr. Dollarhite, I’ve got the report on my desk, and I’m just gonna tell you that, once I review it, it’s our intent to prosecute you to the maximum that we can’ and that ‘we will make an example out of you.”
When John once again tried to determine which law he and his wife had violated, he said the USDA lady replied, “We’ll forward you everything.”
“Ma’am, what law have we broken,” John said.
“Well, you sold more than $500 worth of rabbits in one calendar year,” she replied, according to John.
“Okay, what does that have to do with anything?” John countered.
The lady replied by saying there is a guideline which prohibits anyone from selling more than $500 worth of rabbits per year, John recalled, but she refused to cite any specific law and, instead, promised to send him the report containing details.
At that point, John said he called his attorney and was told not to worry about it, because he couldn’t find evidence of any law or regulation the Dollarhites had violated.
Soon after the meeting with the APHIS investigator and with the stress of the investigation hanging over their heads, John said he and his wife traded everything associated with the rabbit operation for other agricultural equipment.
At this point, some important facts about the manner in which the Dollarhites conducted their operation are worth reviewing:
The business was carefully conducted on the property of their Missouri home;
The business complied with all applicable state laws;
The bunnies were kept in large, clean and well-maintained cages; and
Not a single bunny was sold across state lines.
Recently, the Dollarhites received a “Certified Mail Return Receipt” letter (dated April 19, 2011) from the USDA informing them that they had broken the law and must pay USDA a fine of $90,643. Their crime? Violating violating 9 C.F.R. § 2.1 (a) (1): Selling more than $500 worth of rabbits in a calendar year.
At this point, Dollarvalue Rabbitry is expected to produced a $90,643 certified check to cover the fine issued by the Department of Agriculture. The USDA was, however, kind enough to provide in the letter the web address for a website — www.pay.gov — where they could go to pay their fine by credit card by May 23, 2011. Now, that’s convenient!
Based on an average price per rabbit sold being $10.45, the fine comes out to more than $206 per rabbit. In addition, the letter contains the following statement:
APHIS laws and regulations provide for administrative and criminal penalties to enforce these regulatory requirements, including civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each of the violations documented in our investigation.
If the threat contained in the letter is to be believed, the family could be fined as much as $10,000 per rabbit beyond the first 50 bunnies that netted the family its first $500. Do the math (390 rabbits x $10,000 each) and, if they don’t pay the initial fine, they could face additional fines totaling $3.9 million.
Needless to say, the Dollarhites stopped selling rabbits in January 2010 and are considering setting up a legal defense fund.
To see what the USDA has to say about the matter, read my follow-up post, USDA Stands Behind Hare-Raising Fine.
 

laughingduck

Well-Known Member
Yea, go big government! Thank you for protecting us from those bad bunny people. If you do anything out of the ordinary they will be after you too.
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
Just another example in a long line of Big Brothers one size fits all approach and doing what is best for all. thx what would we do without you.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
Just another example in a long line of Big Brothers one size fits all approach and doing what is best for all. thx what would we do without you.
paaaaarrrrooooottttt..


i had a friend who had this happen to him. a visit from the feds b/c he was selling mice from his house, you know what he did??

registered with the USDA, got a business license, and now has a good business going....

he could've just ignored the feds, acted like if nothing was going on, and gotten in some shit... you know, like 'smart' people do....
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
paaaaarrrrooooottttt..


i had a friend who had this happen to him. a visit from the feds b/c he was selling mice from his house, you know what he did??

registered with the USDA, got a business license, and now has a good business going....

he could've just ignored the feds, acted like if nothing was going on, and gotten in some shit... you know, like 'smart' people do....
lol awesome the feds came to protect us from a person selling mice. I wonder if he gave them away, would they bother?

The second best way to run your life is too know the rules and follow them. The best way is to write the rules.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
paaaaarrrrooooottttt..


i had a friend who had this happen to him. a visit from the feds b/c he was selling mice from his house, you know what he did??

registered with the USDA, got a business license, and now has a good business going....

he could've just ignored the feds, acted like if nothing was going on, and gotten in some shit... you know, like 'smart' people do....
Did they threaten a huge fine if he didn't comply?
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
I raised Guinea Pigs and they too fall under USDA control. Housing and conditions fall under federal laws.

I think the president should pardon the bunny people.
 

sharon1

Active Member
How Insane.

I mean, I get that they (government) want their grimey fat fingers further into the pockets of the citizens.
Nobody likes that....but comeon. This family really had to at least have a tiny incling that they needed to....oh I dunno.....buy a business license maybe?

FFS, I make handmade soap. I've sold and given away some of the stuff I've made. Common sense tells me however, that if I began selling it on a regular basis, I would need to check into the business laws in my city/state.

I don't see how the city in this case is going to be able to make the fines stick, but part of the blame has to go to this family for not using the common sense God gave a duck.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Its not the city that is levying the fine it is the Federal Government. It has nothing to do with a business license either, and everything to do with selling more than $500 dollars worth of rabbits in a year. Because everyone knows that if you sell less than $500 worth you are an outstanding citizen, but if you sell more than $500 worth you are a serious criminal who deserves to pay a fine commensurate with one levied against a murderer, bank robber and Ponzi Schemer all rolled into one.

What they should do is have a team of people sell each other the same rabbit over and over each week for $501 each time, and do all the paperwork and keep the inspector and other bureaucrats so busy with their little game that they are rendered, for all intents and purposes, powerless.

Don't feed the beast, bleed the beast.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Well I understand the need for proper facilities and I assume there will be some cut off.

Isn't it about insuring the quality of the living conditions for the animals if an operation is in business?
By the way has any one heard a bunny scream as it's getting killed?

Wow.
 

deprave

New Member
Isn't it about insuring the quality of the living conditions for the animals
That is the guise they use to pass shitty laws like this, just look at how our chicken and cattle are treated and tell me its humane, healthy, or even sane I dare you.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
the 500 dollar margin exists b/c 500 is an arbitrary number by which the government decides you are doing this as a commercial venture, instead of as just a hobby.

my friend sold mice to a pet store and several snake owners to have beer money. when he sold to the pet store he got the visit.... the USDA just wants to make sure these animals don't become host to some sort of disease with no idea where the infected mice are going to.

i am surprised that they could get a 4 million dollar fine... but they kinda explained how they were running the thing as a business, rather than as a hobby, without going through the proper channels first. referring to two 'important accounts' which were two established businesses doesn't really help their argument that it was a hobby...

i will say that i'd deal with it by levying the fine against the larger (in terms of the previous years's income) firm. instead of punishing the small time bunny farmers, make that pet store pay for not being responsible in ensuring where potential host animals come from....
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
I have to agree I wish we could skip the killing and suffering just to have food.

But then again we are not to nice to people either.

 

jeff f

New Member
the 500 dollar margin exists b/c 500 is an arbitrary number by which the government decides you are doing this as a commercial venture, instead of as just a hobby.

my friend sold mice to a pet store and several snake owners to have beer money. when he sold to the pet store he got the visit.... the USDA just wants to make sure these animals don't become host to some sort of disease with no idea where the infected mice are going to.

i am surprised that they could get a 4 million dollar fine... but they kinda explained how they were running the thing as a business, rather than as a hobby, without going through the proper channels first. referring to two 'important accounts' which were two established businesses doesn't really help their argument that it was a hobby...

i will say that i'd deal with it by levying the fine against the larger (in terms of the previous years's income) firm. instead of punishing the small time bunny farmers, make that pet store pay for not being responsible in ensuring where potential host animals come from....
do you actually believe this load of crap you are pushing?

its amazing how you liberals hate free thinking people and how you love being told what to do, say, and think by a do nothing pos government worker. simply amazing

fuck people who think like you and fuck your "proper channels".
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
do you actually believe this load of crap you are pushing?

its amazing how you liberals hate free thinking people and how you love being told what to do, say, and think by a do nothing pos government worker. simply amazing

fuck people who think like you and fuck your "proper channels".
I am trying to connect your complaint to that comment.

I can't..

Wanna explain?
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
I think the Girls Scout cookie thing was like the bunny stuff as well.

But I have to say, That I had 200 sows (guinea pigs) and it's a full time job and disease is a serious issue in large scale ops.

So at some point we do need to consider it commercial and then regulations apply.

I question the $90,000 fine big time.
 

kevin

Well-Known Member
i need to look deeper into this. i buy and sell chickens and i don't need any strangers knocking on my door because of some simple ass paper work. fuck me...
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
I just saw something about chicken eggs being illegal too..

Where did i read that?


Edit

-----------------------------------------

A quick google
Today, my illegal chicken Victoria laid her first egg. I suppose the egg is illegal too. It's large and brown and my roommate's daughter will get to eat it because she won our bet on which day the first egg would come. According to a study done by Mother Earth News, this egg will be healthier than anything you find in the store - even the cage free organic eggs. That is because of the chicken's diet. Most egg laying chickens in this country eat only chicken feed. My chickens eat that too, but they also dine on kitchen scraps, bugs, and grass. That means their eggs will have more vitamins, better fats, and less cholesterol than the eggs in the store. If you want to buy an egg that is as good as Victoria's, you have to get to the La Mesa farmer's market early enough to buy them, for $5 per dozen. La Mesa is pretty common in its chicken rules. It does not forbid chickens outright (although it does forbid roosters) but you can only have chickens in certain zones. In most of La Mesa, you cannot legally keep a chicken. Many cities around the U.S. are changing their chicken laws, typically allowing a family to keep about 3 to 8 hens (no roosters) in a clean, well-maintained coop. Salt Lake City went even further, allowing homeowners to keep up to 15 fowl if their lot is smaller than a quarter acre, or 25 fowl if their lot is larger than that. Usually after a city allows chickens, the response is: "Wow, that's no big deal at all!" (Although some respond with "Gee, I want some chickens too!")


http://www.lamesatoday.com/profiles/blogs/an-illegal-egg
 

cruzer101

Well-Known Member
Wow, what was to be a lesson for their son turned out to be a lesson for themselves.
Live and learn I guess.
 
Top