An article in last week's issue, “Sneer Campaign,” incorrectly said that the radio program This American Life is produced by National Public Radio. The program is in fact produced by Chicago Public Radio and distributed by Public Radio International.

— The Editors

Pisgah National Forest is missing a golden opportunity and charting the wrong course with its proposal for the Brushy Ridge Project, an operation that sets the direction for management of the North Mills River area over the next decade. The river is well-loved and heavily used by local residents and tourists. Being one of the closest Forest Service properties to Asheville and Hendersonville, it is extremely popular with anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, hikers and campers. People in Buncombe and Henderson counties receive their water from it, and the outstanding nature of the stream qualifies it to be a National Wild and Scenic River. Yet, if you look at the map of the Brushy Ridge Project, you will see over 1,800 acres of logging planned, almost all of which set the stage for current and future timber production.

Earlier this spring, conservation groups WildLaw, Western North Carolina Alliance, Wild South and the Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition submitted a proposal for management activities around the river based on principles of ecological restoration. Management from this perspective seeks to improve the health of the land by repairing damaged and degraded ecosystems rather than simply managing for resource extraction. Our proposal advocates restoring native forests by logging pine plantations, controlling nonnative plant populations, improving structure and diversity in damaged forests, restoring rare communities like bogs, using controlled fire to improve and maintain dry forest types and converting some of the many miles of logging roads to trails to disperse and meet recreational demand.

These activities would supply jobs and meet resource needs while leaving mature, healthy, native forest intact. To their credit, officials with the Pisgah National Forest obliged us by adding some of our ideas to the logging project they had planned. The overall project, however, is not acceptable to those of us who think that the North Mills River has values above and beyond the amount of timber it could produce.

The 443 acres of logging and 1,348 acres of logging preparations planned for the Brushy Ridge Project are rationalized by supposed benefits to some wildlife species. Some species do benefit from logging, while others are hurt by it. Where the Brushy Ridge Project misses the mark is that over 300 acres of the proposed logging targets forests are existing high-quality wildlife habitat for forest species.

By focusing the project on ecological restoration, rather than outdated, crop-rotation-based logging, there could be benefits to species that enjoy early successional habitat without damaging hundreds of acres of outstanding wildlife habitat and some of the nicest public forest we have.

For those who have an interest in the management of the North Mills River and surrounding public lands, more information can be found at http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/.

— Josh Kelly, staff biologist, WildLaw Southern Appalachian Office
Asheville

We absolutely do not need another hotel in Asheville (they're building one at the end of South French Broad). Has anyone looked into the yellow pages of our phone book lately?

Robert McGahey had it right [in his June 10 Xpress commentary, “Just Remnants”]: “We and the land are victims of overdevelopment, especially around Asheville.”

There is a garden of sorts in several busy downtown streets — why can't we have a grassy area near the Basilica?

— Jean Gertz
Asheville

I am responding to two letters in the June 17 Xpress about "tethering" dogs. Cynthia Etheridge "couldn't be more disgusted with Council members," and Troy Amastar complains about labeling "animal-rights activists as extremists.”

For the record, I live in Asheville, voted for Obama, drive a hybrid, shop at the Co-op and don't eat meat. I also put my dog on a 12-foot leash — attached to a 60-foot runner in my large backyard — for one to three hours every day to get fresh air, in addition to daily walks in the neighborhood. I never leave the property with him tied up, and if he barks, he's telling me he wants to come in. Yet the proposed ban put before City Council, and ardently supported by Etheridge and Amastar, would turn me into a criminal for "tethering" my dog, as they want a complete ban with no exceptions.

Me, I couldn't "be more disgusted" with shortsighted people who react to the world only in black and white. Sure there's a problem with neglected dogs. But don't call me cruel and torturous or criminalize me for giving my dog the pleasure of sniffing the air in the shade under a tree. Ms. Etheridge, the solution is not simple as you assert. Design and propose a law that isn't stupidly reactionary — and then City Council, and I, will support it.

— Robert Collins
Asheville

Here in Asheville, we have an incredible wealth of traditional healers, yet because of health-care constraints most of us cannot even afford to have what should be seen as “well-being care.” Insurance will not cover anything outside the box. And that affects all of us.

We can't get health care nationally because it has been cited as too expensive — but dying is not. Cutting off a breast is always covered. But trying to find a way to stay out of the surgical unit is seen as not profitable?

What is wrong with this picture? What is wrong with our culture that being ill is coveted? Our fear-based nation is pervasive — fear of being well and fear of being not covered. Imagine the options that can truly be realized by being covered by integrative offerings that make us wholly well, vs. medical insurance that uses Western medicine that only treats the symptom?

We know all the arguments, but it really comes down to the powerful lobbying of the American Medical Association. If the lobby arbitrarily decides a plan cannot make a cent, it's deemed unnecessary or inaccessible.

Doesn't this make for an angry populace? If we cannot have the option to get the kind of health care that causes us — picture this — to thrive, do we truly have to sit back and watch death and disease? Is this what we want for the future?

Why are we allowing these powerful lobbyists to tell us what choices we have?

How can we resolve this here in Asheville, or for that matter nationally?

I, for one, want the option to see alternative practitioners, but at this point, since it would have to be out of pocket, I would then also decide not to eat or pay rent or electricity.

Not a choice. Not an option. Why aren't we in the street?

— Ariel Harris
Candler

I have been involved with Asheville politics off and on for over nine years. I met Gordon Smith last year and from the onset was quite impressed with his thirst for knowledge for local issues. He stays informed on what is going on in our community and truly cares about people. I was thrilled when I heard he was going to run for Asheville City Council! I encourage neighbors, friends and anyone who wants to see Asheville grow smart and prosper to check out Gordon's Web site at http://www.gordonforasheville.com, where he articulates his thoughts and recommendations on multiple issues. I am proud to support Gordon Smith in his run for City Council. I hope others interested in Asheville's future will learn about Gordon and cast their vote for him.

— Becky Davis
Asheville

I don't want a new Supreme Court judge who speaks anything other than their own sincere beliefs. Yet with her recent defense of her membership in the Belizian Grove, Sonia Sotomayor has shown herself as intellectually dishonest. 

"The Belizian Grove is a constellation of influential women” is how their mission statement begins. There is no clear way to apply for membership on their Web site, but member Mary Pearl was recently quoted as stating that “The way you become a member is people recommend friends.” So clearly it is a club of women, for women, who are only going to invite other women. 

But now that membership in a club that discriminates based on sex is holding back her nomination, how does Sotomayor defend herself? By demanding that this rule be equally held up for men? By withdrawing her membership gracefully? No! By lying, and acting as though men could join, if only they would apply! B.S.! Either she's a liar or she's ignorant, neither of which are acceptable traits for a Supreme Court judge speaking up about a legal issue.

I would have been very happy to see a nonwhite female on court, for diversity brings perspective. And honestly, I'm not invidious about her being a member (I wouldn't resent not being offered membership due to my sex; this is the real legal issue at stake). But her defense of her membership is simply idiotic, and I don't want a superiorly wise Latina woman who is truly a moron to take that important seat.

— Rob Close
Asheville