It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

USDA Reportedly Orders Children’s Magician to Produce ‘Disaster Plan’ for His…Rabbit

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Mods...I truly believe we need a new forum for this type of nonsense. We could call it:

"ARE YOU FRICKIN' KIDDING ME?

So read on and you'll understand why.


www.theblaze.com... USDA rabbit license requirement has taken another ridiculous twist. I just received an 8 page letter from the USDA, telling me that by July 29 I need to have in place a written disaster plan, detailing all the steps I would take to help get my rabbit through a disaster, such as a tornado, fire, flood, etc.

They not only want to know how I will protect my rabbit during a disaster, but also what I will do after the disaster, to make sure my rabbit gets cared for properly. I am not kidding–before the end of July I need to have this written rabbit disaster plan in place, or I am breaking the law.


The new regulation became effective Jan. 30, 2012;
The written plan must be completed by July 29, 2013;
Hahne and his wife, Brenda, must be trained to implement the plan as written; and
The written plan must be available for review by USDA inspectors by Sept. 28, 2013.

How much can people take anymore? How much of your money was spent for this? Is there a law that covers cats, dogs, canaries...hamsters? Not that I'm aware of.

One poster:


t00nces2
Jun. 29, 2013 at 11:04pm

Dear USDA, My plan is to eat the rabbit should an emergency situation arise.

Thank you.


And another:


Jive Mickey
Jun. 29, 2013 at 11:09pm

So give them a disaster plan:
Step one … grab the rabbit.
Step two … stuff rabbit in shirt.
Step three … run like hell with rabbit to safe location.
Step four … when safe, remove rabbit from shirt.
Step five … give the rabbit a carrot.

See … no big deal.


My answer? Keep him close at hand...just in case the cheerios supply runs low.
Or if it's really serious I'll just pull a Forest Gump: "Run Bunny Run!"

I mean really?

The Elusive Bunny Box



So, stop asking where your tax dollars go because now you know.


And just in case you might think this bunny gets special treatment, wrong again. Too much to list here but have a little read and follow the link to see this secret war on magic show bunnies by the USDA.

USDA ‘Rabbit Police’ Stalking Magicians (Update)


bobmccarty.com...
Finally, it was time for the inspection at the Hahne’s home. Marty decided to ask some questions.

“My friend has a snake,” he said. The inspector quickly told him they don’t regulate snakes.

“No,” Marty said, “I mean he feeds his snake rabbits. He breaks their necks and drops them in the cage for the snake’s food. Does he have to have a permit for that?” Again, she told him there’s no regulation for that.

“So I could break my rabbit’s neck and feed him to my friend’s snake and I wouldn’t need a license?” Marty asked.

“Correct,” she said, “But you need a license to use him in your magic show.”

Within an hour after the incident at the library, librarians at the other nine libraries in the system had heard what happened. By the next morning, the lady had emailed every library in the state of Missouri — close to 700 libraries! She informed everyone that Marty could cause problems because of his rabbit!

I have to at this point send a warning to our bunny members (you know who you are) if you are involved in any type of entertainment, RUN!!!


Peace




posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
This is really not that shocking to me, and it's not as unnecessary as you might think at first glance.
Animals used in any type of entertainment endeavor have historically been abused, and often killed in inhuman ways. They work in environments involving stunts, pyrotechnics, etc... They are being used in that way to generate a profit for the entertainer, unlike someone using them as “feeding”, or livestock. As an example, this is why you now see blurbs at the end of movies stating “No animals were harmed during the filming of this movie”.

As a prime example of how animals would be inhumanly treated in a magic act, the movie “The Prestige” comes to mind. In that movie, Michael Cain would do a trick in which he would put a canary in a cage, collapse the cage, then the canary would magically fly out of his hand. In reality he had two canaries, one he would release, the other was crushed in the cage every time he preformed the trick.

Here I found a part of that scene:

edit on 6/30/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


What I'm wondering is what sort of "rabbit disaster plan" the government has for the countless rabbits on government land in the event of a forest fire.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
This is really not that shocking to me, and it's not as unnecessary as you might think at first glance.
Animals used in any type of entertainment endeavor have historically been abused, and often killed in inhuman ways. They work in environments involving stunts, pyrotechnics, etc... They are being used in that way to generate a profit for the entertainer, unlike someone using them as “feeding”, or livestock. As an example, this is why you now see blurbs at the end of movies stating “No animals were harmed during the filming of this movie”.



Oh believe me when I say that animal abuse is definitely on my hit list. And yes, people owning animals should be subject to some laws if used in entertainment.

But..."Disaster Plan" is going too far IMO.

When the SHTF, it's every bunny for themselves.

My question is why only the bunnies? Cats, dogs and even the snakes in the link...no plans necessary.

Just strange and a complete waste of money I believe.

Peace
edit on Sun Jun 30 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Either it was a typo from the usda or these people are really stupid. Ok I know we have big heart for animal but in an real emergency we're trying to save our on asses let alone worrying about bug's bunny.

Is there any special reason why they even wasted ink on this?



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 
News stories, especially from “sensationalist” sources like “The Blaze”, often skew the facts of a story, or leave out pertinent information that makes the story less “spectacular” sounding. I would have to a some digging to find the truth behind this, and I just don't have the time ATM. However, I'm suspecting that its not “Just rabbits”, but any "performance" animal falling under the USDA's Animal Welfare Act.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Who knew that Magicians and Government had so much in common?

They both can pull BS out of their hats.

TYVM.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
One more thing I forgot to mention.

Originally posted by jude11
But..."Disaster Plan" is going too far IMO.
When the SHTF, it's every bunny for themselves.

The reason is because of lessons learned from disasters like in Louisiana. Do you really want the local zoo to leave their animals caged up to drown, or be electrocuted? Would you rather that the local “big cat sanctuary” turned its animals loose to fend for themselves in the local neighborhood, and endanger the public?

While it seems asinine for a rabbit, the fact is that the laws are most likely written in general terms that apply to all “mammals” or something similar. So while it again might seem asinine to know what a person is going to do with their trained performance rabbit, it doesn't seem quite so insane when you ask what is someone going to do with a tiger or lion... The law though is most likely written in a generic fashion.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by jude11
 
News stories, especially from “sensationalist” sources like “The Blaze”, often skew the facts of a story, or leave out pertinent information that makes the story less “spectacular” sounding. I would have to a some digging to find the truth behind this, and I just don't have the time ATM. However, I'm suspecting that its not “Just rabbits”, but any "performance" animal falling under the USDA's Animal Welfare Act.



I agree.

If you follow the second link in the OP, it goes even further.

Yes the blaze can be sensationalistic...and the second source can be as well but...

If this is indeed something he was made to do, then dog and cat owners should have to do the same IMO.

But more importantly I don't believe the Govt. should be wasting dollars for something like this when millions are homeless and without food.

Just nothing phases me anymore.

Peace



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 

It has to do with the way that the law works. There are laws applying to the use of animals in entertainment, but there are no federal laws on animal ownership in general that I am aware of. Most laws applying to animal ownership are local ordinances, and state laws regarding agricultural animals. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the legal definition of “performance animals” applies to all “mammals”, and that is why he got dung.

It obviously does not apply to reptiles or insects (for example), as those are considered vermin and pests. If it did, then a company shooting a movie could get in trouble for spraying for mosquitoes, or have to ensure that none of their camera equipment rolled over a “green anole” (those little lizard buggers that are all over Florida where many movies are filmed).

So while it seems silly, its a byproduct of how the legal system works and defines things, more than an intentional waste of taxpayer money.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by jude11
 

It has to do with the way that the law works. There are laws applying to the use of animals in entertainment, but there are no federal laws on animal ownership in general that I am aware of. Most laws applying to animal ownership are local ordinances, and state laws regarding agricultural animals. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the legal definition of “performance animals” applies to all “mammals”, and that is why he got dung.

It obviously does not apply to reptiles or insects (for example), as those are considered vermin and pests. If it did, then a company shooting a movie could get in trouble for spraying for mosquitoes, or have to ensure that none of their camera equipment rolled over a “green anole” (those little lizard buggers that are all over Florida where many movies are filmed).

So while it seems silly, its a byproduct of how the legal system works and defines things, more than an intentional waste of taxpayer money.


Ok,

But rabbits are actually considered pests as well.

www.ipm.ucdavis.edu...

Peace



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
One more thing I forgot to mention.

Originally posted by jude11
But..."Disaster Plan" is going too far IMO.
When the SHTF, it's every bunny for themselves.

The reason is because of lessons learned from disasters like in Louisiana. Do you really want the local zoo to leave their animals caged up to drown, or be electrocuted? Would you rather that the local “big cat sanctuary” turned its animals loose to fend for themselves in the local neighborhood, and endanger the public?

While it seems asinine for a rabbit, the fact is that the laws are most likely written in general terms that apply to all “mammals” or something similar. So while it again might seem asinine to know what a person is going to do with their trained performance rabbit, it doesn't seem quite so insane when you ask what is someone going to do with a tiger or lion... The law though is most likely written in a generic fashion.


Great post and well said.

I agree and your examples make the point well.

I have a question though, why is the law written in a generic fashion. Should it be!

Our system is based on 'the law is the law.' In any half decent place the law must have some common sense. Just because some idiot wrote a generic law, (probably a Captain) and other idiots passed it (probably a General) Does not protect the Law from being stupid. Either we buckle under and accept idiotic laws or we choose not to.

A little research as to who were the towing intellects that wrote and passed it together with a letter to the editor of the Stars and Stripes (including the names of the ding dongs) would probably lead to the re-writing of this law. Nobody likes to be called an idiot.

P



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


I was under the impression that these disaster plans are for more than just rabbits.

What comes to mind is during a longer term evacuation where food is being rationed you cant expect children to go hungry because some people were too bored or stupid to resist the urge to own an animal. Probably why the DHS bought all those bullets....



edit on 30-6-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by jude11
 


I was under the impression that these disaster plans are for more than just rabbits.

What comes to mind is during a longer term evacuation where food is being rationed you cant expect children to go hungry because some people were too bored or stupid to resist the urge to own an animal. Probably why the DHS bought all those bullets....



edit on 30-6-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)


I don't think the DHS is going bunny hunting with all those hollow points...


Silly Wabbit!

Peace



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
But rabbits are actually considered pests as well.

Rabbits are also considered livestock and even pets, it depends on who is classifying it. So a state ordinance that supports farmers states they are a pest, but a local ordinance treating them as pets may have other rules. The USDA obviously has rules for them as performance animals since they are commonly used in stage magic.

Originally posted by pheonix358
I have a question though, why is the law written in a generic fashion. Should it be!

I haven't read the law myself, and I was unable to get the PDF file to open, so I am just guessing here.
I would assume that they are going to classify animals in the largest generic group possible, or the laws become a nightmare for everyone, both those who have to follow it, and those who have to enforce it. I mean just think about the number of different animals in existence and it should be apparent why they would generalize at a high level. I know that if I were writing a law I wouldn't want to have to write different rules for thousands of different animals, and I doubt that owners would want to hunt through it to find the rules that apply to theirs.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join