To the Journal editor:
John Hongisto describes the Sierra Club (full disclosure, I am an employee of the Sierra Club) as an animal rights group, claiming that "Animal protection is their raison d'etre."
This is simply false. While we work to protect populations and species, protecting individual animals has never been our mission.
He claims that the Sierra Club is "anti-hunting." This is false. We have no policy objecting to hunting, no history of objecting to hunting, and many of our members and leaders hunt and fish (including myself).
He claims that the Sierra Club "filed a lawsuit to overturn the recently enacted Wolf Law." Again, patently false. The Sierra Club has not filed suit to overturn either the delisting of the Western Great Lakes population of wolves, nor the recent legislation designating wolves as a Game Species in Michigan.
He claims that the fact that the Wolf Roundtable (which crafted the recommendations upon which the Wolf Plan was based) operated under consensus rule, where recommendations were only adopted if all parties agreed, resulted in a plan which is "deeply, if not fatally, flawed."
In other words, since he didn't get his way on some issues, the whole thing is useless.
However, if Mr. Hongisto truly believes that consensus cannot produce an acceptable outcome, maybe:
- He shouldn't have participated, since this was the rule from day one.
- He shouldn't have allowed the DNR to pay for his hotel room while he participated
- He shouldn't have signed the recommendations at the end of the process.
- He shouldn't have attended the celebration at the end of the process.