>From:    alphachi <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: *****60 BUCKS OR DIE****Marshall's offer?
>After talking with some of the parties actually involved in the negotiations
 
I'm quite certain I've talked to more parties actually involved in the
negotiations over the longer haul but lets not get picky.
 
>Of course no shelter could bear that cost.
 
But Marshall Farms could?  I doubt it.  Nearly every shelter ferret placed
IS potentially a loss of a sale for Marshall.  Sorry but thats the way it
is.  Lets use the "numbers" from the anti-MF folks.  If they have 30,000
breeders and retire them after two breeding years than thats 15,000 ferrets
a year - over a thousand a month.  These thousand lost sales would be
$60,000 to $70,000 dollars a month.  $900,00 to $1,050,000 dollars a year.
Thats a LOT of money to give away in a market with low profit margins.  I'd
be quite impressed to find Marshall makes more than 5% profit on each ferret
sold.  But lets be extravagent and say they make 10% profit margin.  We'll
even make it $7 a ferret.  Well use the over 100,000 kits number from the
anti-MF folks.  Heck make it 150,000 kits!  That would mean $1,050,000
profit.  Compare that to the computed number for lost sales from giving away
the ferrets to "the shelters that demand them.  Not likely to be profitable
after that.  And where were they going to get the money for the health
studies also demanded?
 
However I can see both sides.  We run a shelter.  We have taken in the
"remaining stock" of a few "breeders" that quit and know very well what that
entails.  We've just taken in 23 in one lump.  More than many shelters allow
in at all.  We see the strain on the shelters first hand - not from email
whining but actually handling more ferrets than we want in our house because
we want to do right by the ferrets.  We'll absorb the costs of feeding,
altering and any other care these ferrets need.  We do not accept donations
still - its our feeling that our shelter should run on our funds.  We can
afford to do the things we choose to do.  I don't "like" talking about
taking these in because it seems that we are starting to whine about our
load.  Don't want to whine - its OUR choice to run a shelter.  If we can't
handle it we shouldn't do it.
 
But lets get past the cost for a moment.  What shelters could handle taking
all of the retired breeders from all of the ranches?  There aren't enough
shelters.  There especially aren't enough that are willing to take on these
types of ferrets.  There is no glory in it.  Some shelters seem to thrive on
glory.  Glory comes from the few cases that can make someone seem
particularly important like a single special case that may never even reach
the shelter caliming all the credit.  Those are the easy ones.  The tough
ones are the plain old ordinary cases that just keep coming.  The "breeder"
ferrets that come in enmass with no hypeable special circumstances.  Its
EASY to place the ferrets that get mentioned in detail on the Ferret Digest.
Everyone wants a celebrity ferret.  Its hard to place the ferrets that are
just yet another ferret.  The very best shelters are those that just keep
doing it.  These people know that they couldn't just take all of the ranch
retirees but some would try anyway.
 
Where do you think some thousand ferrets a month would go in these shelters?
You have to answer that before you blame just MF.  There's nowhere for them
to go.
 
>Some may even call Marshall's offer extortion or ransom.
 
You should look up the word extortion.  I've never heard of paying for what
you want defined as extortion.  Now demanding payment (say ferrets) in
return for not damaging a company (say stopping the defamation) which more
accurately describes what you are doing would much better fit the definition
of extortion that I am familiar with.
 
Okay ransom.  Ransom is money paid to get back something that was taken away
illegally.  Ransom would be what MF would pay to get back ferrets taken awy
from them.  Not money given to them in exchange for ferrets they own AND
possess.  Thats a sale.  Sales is what most shelters do.  They take money
(adoption fees) in exchange for goods (ferrets).  We as a group feel this is
good and thats fine but it is a sale.  We try to phrase it differently in
the hopes that the IRS will ignore it and in the hopes that courts will see
it differently if we decide not to place a ferret with a potential adopter.
Its illegal to discriminate against a customer but maybe if we call it an
adoption than the courts will not see it as a sale.
 
>I would prefer it be labeled more accurately as misguided: Why?  On the
>basis of this "offer" it may appear as though Marshall prefers to kill
>ferrets than sell them at a reduced PROFIT or (shudder the thought) at cost!
 
Okay dropping the emotional words you couch this in we have you claiming
that MF will profit at this somehow.  Explain how.  Use figures to justify
your claim.  What price is reasonable for MF to charge for the retired
breeders.  Did your friends come back with a counter proposal?  Or did they
expect "free" only.
 
>I am very interested in ANY argument that even attempts to support MF's
>"offer" logic while recognizing even the basic tenets of humanity.
 
Very simple.  Extremely simple.  Someone came to them with what they
consider outrageous demands but with good intentions.  They decide to go
just about as far to the other side in being outrageous.  The next logical
step is for the non-MF side to say "gosh we can't afford that but maybe we
can find something inbetween "free" and "$60".  But thats not what happened.
They just broke off negotiations - which is really about all they could
really have handled in the first place.  Some of the folks you are talking
about brag about placing a hundred ferrets a year.  What would they do with
a hundred a month besides get overrun with ferrets?
 
>Does anyone really believe this is the BEST Marshall can do?
 
No.  Should they give in everything on the first round of negotiations?
Also no.
 
bill killian
[Posted in FML issue 2001]