USDA Fines Family $90K For Selling Rabbits Without A License
We've gotten to the point where any citizen can be a golden goose for government. This country was to be an example of limited power by the state and it's grown to be anything but.
Jim P. wrote me about this story by Jonathan Strong on The Daily Caller:
It started out as a hobby, a way for the Dollarhite family in Nixa, Mo., to teach a teenage son responsibility. Like a lemonade stand.But now, selling a few hundred rabbits over two years has provoked the heavy hand of the federal government to the tune of a $90,643 fine. The fine was levied more than a year after authorities contacted family members, prompting them to immediately halt their part-time business and liquidate their equipment.
The Dollarhite's story, originally picked up by conservative blogger Bob McCarty, has turned into a call to arms for critics of the government's reach and now has both Democratic and Republican lawmakers vowing to intervene.
John and Judy Dollarhite began selling rabbit meat by the pound in 2006, and as pets to neighbors and friends in 2008.
Raised on the three-acre lot on which their home sits, the rabbits were heralded by local experts for their quality and kept in pristine condition.
When a local pet store asked them to supply their pet rabbits, the Dollarhites had no idea they would be running afoul of an obscure federal regulation that prohibits selling more than $500 worth of rabbits to a pet store without a license from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Under the law, pet stores are exempt from regulation.
But by selling to pet stores for resale, the humble Dollarhites became "wholesale breeders of pet animals," said Dave Sacks, a spokesman for USDA who defended the fine, even while admitting it "looks curious" to the average person.
That's especially so since the Dollarhites face no accusation they mistreated any animals. Instead, they committed what's called in regulatory parlance a "paperwork violation" under the Animal Welfare Act, a 1966 law intended to prevent the abuse of animals.
Instead, it's a lesson in abuse of people by government.
Citizens should not be fined for doing business with willing others.
A license should not be required to do business, unless you're in, say, the business of removing appendixes.
200 years ago, Americans would have responded to something like this with hot tar and feathers.
...or gunfire.
I think the people in the Founder's generation understood liberty better than we do today.
On the other hand, old dogs can learn new tricks.
If anyone was accused of kidnapping a bureaucrat and tarring-and-feathering them over something like this, I'd kick in a $1k for their legal defense fund.
A few thousand incidents like that, and maybe the government thugs would learn to keep their heads down (or better yet, get honest jobs).
TJIC at June 15, 2012 6:25 AM
My question is an example of what:
This is just plain bureaucratic stupidity.
Jim P. at June 15, 2012 6:28 AM
The future:
http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf
Stinky the Clown at June 15, 2012 7:27 AM
Some are quick to question the safety of an x-ray emitter, to the point of assuming that its output power can increase by a factor of a thousand with no basis whatsoever - but it is taken for granted that this family's business is perfection itself.
Maybe it isn't.
The fine is excessive. Given the horrible conditions found at some breeders' premises, how can you say that regulation is totally wrong? There must be a law on the books to charge anyone.
Radwaste at June 15, 2012 7:40 AM
The philosophy of the USDA in this case is similar to the recent scandal at the EPA.
The similarity is that a Progressive idealogue steeped in cutthroat Chicago politics is now President in Chief of the Bureaucracy.
Our "law" has been continuously expanded in the background to give discretionery power to the state. Now we see that our lives are subject in every way to this discretion.
What makes the difference now between a President of the Democratic Republic of the United States, and a Dictator of the United States? Only his willingness to enforce the letter of the law.
EPA Official explains the "crucify" enforcement policy
=== ===
[edited] In a 2010 video, EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz explained his “philosophy of enforcement” to his staff, which he acknowledged being crude and perhaps inappropriate, but shared anyway: ”It is kind of like how the Romans conquered villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a Turkish town, find the first five guys, and crucify ‘em. That little town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
“You make examples out of people who are not complying with the law. You hit ‘em as hard as you can. There’s a deterrent effect. And companies that are smart see that. They decide that it’s time to clean up. And that won’t happen unless you have somebody out there making examples.”
=== ===
If Armendariz had not been so egotistical as to anounce his scorched earth policy on video, he would still be implementing his policy. Who above him is setting this policy for applying each and every rule?
Andrew_M_Garland at June 15, 2012 11:02 AM
Don't you know that the only approved way to earn money any more is by working for the government or wotking for a business in bed with the government?
Dwatney at June 15, 2012 12:13 PM
Radwaste the regulation is wrong for the one simple fact, there are far too fucking many of them for anyone to keep track of.
It is alos worng in that it assumes anyone who runs a breeding program is autmatically incapable of running a clean business
It is also wrong in the fact that is assume anyone with a government licence is automatically going to run a clean business.
It is also wrng in that had the pe store simply run their wn breeding program of the same scale and not bought for this familly the government wouldnt have cared
It is also wrong fr the fact that the only reason this famiily was targeted was for selling more then $500 dollars worth of rabbits to a single pet store, meaning they culd have sld the pet store 4 times as many animls for a quater of the price and as long as they didnt excced the abitrary monetary limit the government wouldnt have cared
It is wrong in the fact that is is predicated on price, not the size or scale of the breeding operation.
You could be fined the same $90,000 for selling one rabbit to a pet store for $500.01
lujlp at June 15, 2012 3:02 PM
A cuple of things, this story was published more than a year ago, so I did a little digging
Their fine was nearly four million, the 90 grand was a 'settlement' they were given less than a month to pay
And ofcouse all 'fines' were dropped. here is their website
http://www.dollarvaluerabbitry.com/Home_Page.php
lujlp at June 15, 2012 3:24 PM
lujlp,
I usually have the same reaction about old cases. In this case blame me, not our gracious hostess, for not fully vetting how current the story was.
But even a $90K fine knocked down from $4M for about $5K in sales and less than a $1K in profit is still unacceptable.
If you didn't read the link one of the paragraphs is:
I could see something on this level if they had abuse in the mix. This was strictly a paerwork violation.
Jim P. at June 15, 2012 10:44 PM
Not sating it doest matter, was just providing more info and an update
lujlp at June 16, 2012 8:36 AM
Jim P - You're citing an absence of evidence. Unfortunately for us all, the LAW must DEFINE what a violation of the law is, and only inspection can determine that.
Does this case suck? Yes. But I am being wholly consistent here: the misbehavior of authorities has no bearing on the suitability of a law, or in this case, a regulation.
Radwaste at June 16, 2012 8:57 AM
You may want to read the records of the case.
But a retreat into the "it's the law" generally means that the person arguing the other side can't muster a rational, reasonable cause for the law's existence. Find me one and I may agree with you. $500.01 of rabbits being sold as pets is not a rational argument.
Jim P. at June 16, 2012 9:57 AM
especially when the NUMBER of rabbits is immeterial.
1 rabbit @ > $500.01 = $4million fine
1,000,000,000 rabbits @
Meaning the law has nothinmg to do with heath or animal care concerns
lujlp at June 16, 2012 4:50 PM
What is this, No Logic Day?
Yes, this case sucks. No, a regulation is not automatically a bad one based on one case and the misbehavior of authorities.
And, to illustrate the lack of logic, please substitute an objective measure other than money for a licensing issue.
Radwaste at June 16, 2012 4:56 PM
There was a typo on my post.
My point was due to the way trhe regulation is written you could breed and sell billions of rabbits so long as you dont exceed 500 in sales.
Tje law is a bad on for that alone. The fact thatg the governmwnt can fine you four million as a private citizen for any reason also makes it bad
lujlp at June 17, 2012 10:07 AM
The regulation is bad because it is not an issue the Federal government should be involved with in any shape, manner or form. I would even be hesitant about it being an issue the state or local government should be involved with. Government regulation is never the answer.
Chris Mallory at June 18, 2012 10:50 AM
Leave a comment