370 American Agriculturist, December 1,1923 
More “Buy Back” Experiences 
A. A. Service Bureau Tells How Standard Food Fur Does Business 
“F'| 1HE rabbit industry is sweeping 
* I ’America,” says one of the form let¬ 
ters with which the Standard Food 
-JL & Fur Association sought , to make 
new customers. Since this and similar let¬ 
ters contain such statements as “for young 
from does which we furnish at $15 each, we 
pay not less than $15 a pair,” or “We ab¬ 
solutely guarantee to buy back hares, raised 
from the parents we sell you, at not l-ess than 
$7 to $18.50 per pair,” it is not surprising 
that the sales of the firm did increase in a 
spectacular manner. 
But the promised sales to be made by the 
purchasers of rabbits did not, apparently, 
go forward as smoothly as the circulars and 
letters would lead a prospective customer to 
believe. Indeed, judging by reports we have 
had from American Agriculturist readers, 
many of these anticipated sales, so glowingly 
pictured, never took place at all. 
In the first place, having 
once sent a check or money 
order in payment, a purchaser 
did not always find it easy to 
get his, original order filled. 
Five months elapsed in a case 
we described in the article in 
the November 17 issue; at 
other times, it has been from 
five weeks to three months be¬ 
fore rabbits arrived, or even, 
in some cases, before an ac¬ 
knowledgment had been re¬ 
ceived. 
In some cases, the buyers 
tried to cancel; we told last 
month how such an order 
came through six months 
after it had first been sent in 
and after repeated instruc¬ 
tions to cancel. 
However, other purchasers 
received the animals and 
started in to work for the 
“real money” promised in the 
alluring circulars and form 
letters. One. New York State 
boy whose father subscribes 
to the American Agricul¬ 
turist, invested his hard- 
earned savings in a pair of 
Black Siberians. He says that upon examin¬ 
ing the buck when it arrived, he discovered 
scars which showed that abscesses had been 
lanced; that the animal had fresh abscesses 
and in spite of the utmost care continued to 
develop more and finally died. This after 
the company had held him up for some time 
waiting for his order. 
However, the doe was bred and young Mr. 
V. soon had rabbits to turn in for the “real 
money” promised. He wrote three times for 
shipping instructions; the third letter was 
answered by the secretary who said that 
they had received only one request. At his 
suggestion, full information as to sex, weight 
and age was sent and he soon advised the 
boy to send a male and female, to weigh over 
6 pounds each. “We ask that you pay ex- 
pressage and we will reimburse you upon 
presentation of express receipt” read the 
letter. Accordingly, Mr. V. shipped 71/4 
pound buck and a doe of 7 pounds and with 
his letter, his express receipt. 
Twenty-five days later, a letter came from 
the firm saying the rabbits were both under 
six pounds. They offered to purchase the 
hares, but not to pay the expressage and 
they asked that the old contract be returned 
for renewal. “Upon receipt we will forward 
you a new contract properly renewed, to¬ 
gether with check, covering hares,” says the 
letter, > 
Then followed considerable correspond¬ 
ence. Mr. V. stuck to his point that the 
hares were not underweight. He also did 
not want to give up his contract until his 
first shipment was paid for. The firm wrote 
in one letter: “You are not assuming the 
right attitude at all.” 
One letter, after a lapse of two months, 
finally said: “We have instructed our treas¬ 
urer to remit to you $11.” Mr. V. waited 
two more months. Then he wrote the. firm. 
They said the check had been sent. Three 
weeks later, the aid of the American Agri¬ 
culturist Service Bureau was enlisted. It 
was just a month later when we forwarded 
a check for $11 to Mr. V. and as his first 
letter from the. firm had been dated in Janu- 
ary, and his check was received the follow¬ 
ing November, it appears that he worked 
eleven months to make eleven dollars—not 
as large a “spare time” income as one cuuld 
imagine! 
The Standard Food* & Fur Association 
states that many letters from satisfied custo¬ 
mers are. available, so it would seem that in 
spite of the cases in which stock is unac¬ 
countably delayed or in which it is delivered, 
but progeny is not bought back, there must 
be some cases of purchasers who sell rabbits 
to the firm and carry on business over some 
space of time. 
One such instance is included in the Amer¬ 
ican Agriculturist files. 
Mrs. B. of Maryland sent us, just a year 
and a month ago, a claim for $8.45 for a 
pair of Belgium Hares, plus freight. She 
wrote: “I have been shipping stock to them 
for more than a year and have trouble in 
getting my money back every time. They 
have said they would send it ($8.45) but it 
has been two months and they will not an¬ 
swer my letters any more.” 
We immediately wrote to the firm, and re¬ 
ceived in replyva letter stating that they had 
no correspondence at all with the. customer. 
We asked Mrs. B. for her express receipts 
and previous letters from the company, but 
she informed us that she had long since sent 
all ^uch documents to the company at their 
request. They sent a letter saying: ‘Find en¬ 
closed check for hares for- $7 and express 
$1.45’ and there was no check there,” said 
Mrs. B. 
Again we wrote the firm, but to no avail. 
Our last letter, going over the facts and ask¬ 
ing for the check has never been answered. 
Mrs. B. had written us: “Those hares cost 
me a lot to raise, and I am a mother with 
children and am not able to lose it. I have 
a lot of hares and they will not buy them as 
they guaranteed me they would. What shall 
I do?” 
That last question is a hard one to answer. 
The Standard Food & Fur Association, as 
as far as our records go, has never attempted 
to do so. 
It also does not seem as though the files 
were kept in a businesslike way, to say the 
least, when there is no trace of correspond¬ 
ence with a customer whose dealings extend 
back over a year's time! Inasmuch as our 
letter of last January never elicited the 
favor of a reply we have no way of know¬ 
ing whether or not the missing correspond¬ 
ence^—to say nothing of duplicate letters, 
receipts and other documents forwarded by 
Mrs. B.—ever came to light. 
According to the statement of the Standard 
Food & Fur Association, the 
Argent de Champagne rabbit, 
a French importation, is a very 
valuable breed. These are, 
therefore, among the most 
costly animals. A subscriber 
who thought it would pay to 
get the best, purchased a doe, 
which was to have been bred 
before shipment. Mr. W. 
waited for the expected litter, 
but the 4 young rabbits never* 
arrived. 
He, therefore, wrote the 
company to know what they 
would offer for the doe. They 
said they were under no ob¬ 
ligation to repurchase stock, 
but offered $10, expenses of 
shipment to be carried by Mr. 
W. In order to save what he 
could of his money, Mr. W. 
accepted the offer and sent 
the doe back C. 0. D. $10, ex¬ 
press prepaid. 
He writes:—“The follow¬ 
ing day, I received a letter ex¬ 
citedly emphasizing the fact 
that they never authorized me 
to ship them a rabbit with a 
$10 C. O. D. charge on it, and 
asking me to release the C. O. D. and they 
would accept the rabbit. So I accordingly 
wired the New York office at once to release 
the doe. After .waiting two weeks without 
reply, I finally.wrote the express company 
and received a letter back that C. O. D. was 
released and the company had taken the 
rabbit.” 
Then followed the usual complaint and 
silence on the part of the company. The $10 
did not arrive. The Service Bureau took it 
up, writing the firm letters at regular inter¬ 
vals for some months. Whether or not, they 
settled with Mr. W. we do not know, for 
they never gave us the courtesy of a reply. 
We are inclined to think that Mr. W. proba¬ 
bly summed up the case when he said: “I am 
now out $25 plus express charges back, and 
have neither money nor'rabbit.” 
Even when we succeeded in getting re¬ 
mittances for our subscribers, practically 
every case was long drawn out and became 
unnecessarily involved by contradictory 
statements on the part of' the company. One 
debate over $9.50 extended from November 
16, 1922 to January 8, 1923. Another case 
began in March, was referred to them for 
settlement without success, came to us early 
in October, and in November we had the 
pleasure of sending Mr. C. his check. 
One of the most complicated cases, brought 
to our attention last May, has apparently 
been abandoned by the Standard Food & Fur 
(Continued on page 378) 
HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEHIND THE TIMES 
These Russian peasants are “plowing-” for grain. When farm machinery is used 
on the hundreds of thousands of acres in the world where hand methods now pre¬ 
vail, what will be the effect in the world's food supply and prices? 
