Regarding the 4/12 article in Eugene Weekly titled “Forestry Panel Addresses Controversy,” I have to say I completely understand why some of the board members of GreenLane would not want a representative of the Seneca timber companies on their board. Attempting to show face on a sustainable platform will not excuse the past years of detriment and obvious disregard for the damage done by the timber industry.

While I think it very fair and optimistic of Robin Forster to “give everyone a voice,” I find myself agreeing more with Shawn Donille, that this is an attempt of “greenwashing.”

For example, I think Seneca will make changes here and there (perhaps thinning one forest before clearcutting two), but only enough to maintain positive coverage, claim “sustainability” and keep profits high, all the while trying to fool voters into believing we don’t need to make laws against clearcutting, while they continue to do what? Clearcut.

In this case, we need to choose whom we give a voice to. It seems giving Seneca one could potentially lessen the credibility of GreenLane. Should they really allow themselves to be used as a mouthpiece for the timber industry?

Michelle Slaven


Comments are closed.