State website (WI) to promote fur trade

[Bushfire]

SavorWisconsin site's aim is to put more cash in farm coveralls

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jan04/197715.asp

Thieding said the agriculture department's role - relieving other agencies from the difficult job of administering their Web sites - is key.

The aim is to expand the site to include producers of furs, soaps, paper, jellies, jams, cranberry juices and honey.

more...

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jan04/197715.asp

you have to scroll down to the bottom of the page, but any attempt for the state to promote the killing of animals solely for their fur is disgusting. My Gov & Lt. Gov will be hearing from me on this.

[AnnabelLee]

1. Me, too (again)

I've been writing to my legislators futilely for years, asking them to ban the steel jaw leg-hold trap.:mad:

[sybylla]

2. Ah, well, it's all about fairness.

As long as it is legal to produce fur, the Ag department must support all "agricultural" producers. Though in this case they are talking about related industries, if they support any they would have to support them all. The state ag department cannot discriminate.

My suggestion is that rather than advocate for discrimination, you advocate for the termination of fur farming and trapping for fur.

[Bushfire]

3. It's a luxury item, not agricultural at all.

It doesn't put food on anybody's table, and only serves those who choose to wear the dead animals fur. I welcome your opinion, and if the state by legal definition has to include those farmers for fear of being sued then so be it. I will make my voice heard though. Freedom of speech exists still in the land of Cheese.

I have contacted both the Gov & Lt Gov, and will post any reply from their offices to this thread. Thanks AnnabelLee for checking in. We need to catch up some time soon in person again.

[sybylla]

4. Agreed, fur farming and trapping doesn't put food on anyone's table

But it is under the milieu of the ag department. And I presume that if they are expending funds on promoting and preserving "produce" from Wisconsin, I would hope, as a farmer of anything, that they didn't discriminate in favor of or against any particular kind of "produce."

I support your efforts. I just doubt our Gov and Lt. Gov. can do anything about it with an executive pen. I suppose it may be possible it can be legislated that fur and fur farming are removed from all state sponsored support. But if you can get that through our do-nothing legislature, perhaps you can get it banned entirely. Just thought you might have a better shot at the Gov by giving him a suggestion for legislation rather than a complaint that can only be resolved by the ag dept discriminating.

[eyesroll]

5. I'm trying to get a Milwaukee-area gathering together

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=616186

(Where is everybody?)

[TheMightyFavog]

6. You're not going to see trapping banned anytime soon in Wisconsin.

Wiscosnin recently overwhelmigly passed a constitutional amendment saying that hunting, fishing, and trapping is a right "subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law".

If you're going to ban trapping, you're going to have to change the constitution. Trust me, an anti-trapping amendment would never even make it past the first legislative session, much less make it to the ballot.