Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:15:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Alice McCombs <amccombs@igc.apc.org>

Contents

1. ACTION ALERT! Jan. 20 International Call-In for SB 3, Wisconsin's
Sulfide Mining Moratorium
2. AUSTRALIA: Action - mineral rights

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1. ACTION ALERT! Jan. 20 International Call-In for SB 3, Wisconsin's
Sulfide Mining Moratorium

For wide distribution

Date: January 14, 1998
From: Mining Impact Coalition <mic@miningimpacts.net>

Help protect Wisconsin Northwoods, the Wolf and Wisconsin Rivers, and the
Great Lakes and Mississippi Watersheds: Ask Wisconsin state officials to
PASS SB3, the sulfide Mining Moratorium bill WITHOUT Amendments

Across Wisconsin, citizens have overwhelmingly demonstrated their
opposition to sulfide mining and their support for the sulfide Mining
Moratorium:

A poll conducted in October 1997 by Chamberlain Research Consultants for
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation showed that 52.5% oppose Exxon's proposed
Wolf River mine.

42 counties, cities, villages, and towns along the Wisconsin River
have passed resolutions or have gone on record in opposition to the
Crandon Mine and/or pipeline.

44 other counties, villages, towns, unions and organizations have
passed resolutions or have gone on record in opposition to the
Crandon Mine and/or pipeline.

13 counties, towns and organizations that have passed resolutions or
legislation opposing mining in general.

At least 76 Wisconsin municipalities and organizations support the
Mining Moratorium.

40,000 Wisconsin citizens have signed a petition supporting the sulfide
Mining Moratorium.

Metallic sulfide mining of north Wisconsin would ruin the state's $6
billion tourist economy and transform the state's pristine northern forests
into a region of Superfund sites.

Sulfide mining in north Wisconsin would put the cultures and lifestyles of
three federally recognized Wisconsin Indian Tribes, the Mole Lake Sokaogon
Chippewa, the Forest County Potawatomi, and the Menominee Nation, at high
risk.

Sulfide mining in Wisconsin is not just a local state issue -- it is a
national and international concern. Multinational companies, which have
leased over 300,000 acres in Wisconsin for mineral prospecting and
exploration, stand poised to make north Wisconsin a sulfide mining
district. The Great Lakes and Mississippi watersheds would constantly be
threatened with contamination by hazardous waste spills from trucks and
trains carrying toxic chemicals to and from mine sites. In addition, a
sulfide mining district would put the Great Lake and Mississippi watersheds
at high risk for contamination by deposits of heavy metal air particulates,
pipeline ruptures and acid mine drainage.

Every sulfide ore mine ever built has caused dangerous pollution. More than
12,000 miles of U.S. rivers have been permanently damaged by mine
pollution. Sport fishing has been destroyed and tourism damaged.

The Mining Moratorium Bill, SB 3, is a practical approach to prevent a mine
from being built until the mine technology can be proven safe. SB 3
provides that no permit for a metallic mine in a sulfide ore can be issued
until the mining company shows evidence of a mine in a similar sulfide ore
body that has operated for 10 years without pollution and evidence of a
mine in a similar sulfide body that has been closed for 10 years without
significant environmental damage.

You can help protect Wisconsin, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi
Watersheds, and Wisconsin Indian Tribes now and for future generations. The
state Assembly is supposed to vote on SB 3 January 22. Your requests can
help persuade Wisconsin officials to pass SB 3.

Please take a moment on January 20 to email, phone and/or fax the following
Wisconsin officials. Ask them to PASS SB3, the sulfide Mining Moratorium
bill WITHOUT Amendments.

If you live in Wisconsin please call toll free 1-800-362-9477; find out who
your State Assembly Representative is and contact him/her; urge support of
the Mining Moratorium Bill SB 3 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS.

And please cc a copy of your request to Mining Impact Coalition:
mic@miningimpacts.net

Thanks in advance for your help!

A. I McCombs
Mining Impact Coalition

---------------------------------

Wisconsin officials to contact:

Governor Tommy Thompson
Telephone: 608-266-1212
Fax: 608-267-8983
wisgov@mail.state.wi.us

Representative Scott Jensen, Assembly Speaker
Telephone (608) 264-6970
Toll free (in Wisconsin only) 888-529-0032
Fax (608) 266-7038
Rep.Jensen@legis.state.wi.us

Representative Steve Foti, Assembly Majority Leader
Telephone (608) 266-2401
Toll free (in Wisconswin only) 888-534-0051
Fax (608) 266-7038
(Staff member for Rep. Foti) Michelle.Arbiture@legis.state.wi.us

Representative Marc Duff
Chairman, Assembly Environment Committee
Telephone (608) 266-1190
Toll free (in Wisconsin only) (888) 534-0098
Fax (608) 266-3698
Duff@legis.state.wi.us

Representative Lorraine Seratti
Representative for the district where Exxon's proposed Wolf River Mine
would be located
Telephone (608) 266-3780
Toll free (in Wisconsin only)
Fax (608) 267-0790
Rep.Seratti@legis.state.wi.us

**************************************************************

For information about Exxon's proposed Wolf River mine you are invited to
drop by Mining Impact Coalition at http://www.miningimpacts.net/index.html

Mining Impact Coalition (MIC) works to educate people, conduct research and
facilitate communication about the:

*Social, economic and environmental impacts of unsafe mining and
*Sustainable use of the world's mineral resources

Resources available at the MIC site:

  The latest issue of their newletter, DownStream.
  Cartoons by Bill Krupinski.
  Photographs showing what metallic sulfide mining does to the environment.

To subscribe to MIC, an international email listserv which discusses unsafe
mining and the sustainable use of minerals, send an email to:
mic@earthwins.com
with message:
subscribe mic

Back to top

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2. AUSTRALIA: Action - mineral rights

DEBRA                          hrnet.indigenous            1:00 PM  Jan 13, 1998
(at OLN.comlink.apc.org)                                  (From News system)

Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Edited/Distributed by HURINet - The Human Rights Information Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------
## author     : reyburn@peg.pegasus.oz.au
## date       : 12.01.98
---------------------------------------------------------------------

                       PEOPLES MOVEMENT

                CALL TO ACTION - MINERAL RIGHTS

CULTURAL IMPERIALISM IN THE FANTASY LAND OF OZ.

Have you noticed a pattern emerging in the way the Anglo-
Australian conservatives are playing native title? It's been
around for a while, i know, but it is becoming more
pronounced.

The pattern raises interesting questions about the power
games being played by the use of the English term "culture".
While anthropologists and, increasingly, indigenous peoples
use the term to mean a whole bundle of rights (etc), forces
opposing them use the 'same' word to mean a narrow set of
rights (etc) which are separated from economic rights and
political power.

Part of the meaning of 'culture' came from the idea of what
was best in English life. This meaning lives on in popular
usage. This was extended, i understand, with the realisation
that other peoples had their own cultures. With this shift
the term seems to have also changed from a 'high' position
to a 'core' one. Culture became something which informed
your life.

The use of the term by Anglo-Australian conservatives, in
respect to First Peoples, is another variant. For them
"culture" is part of a cluster of terms which cover segments
of life which are at a remove from the core of Being.

CULTURE, POLITICS, ECONOMICS...

Without providing a sophisticated analysis (this is off the
top of my head) it seems "Culture" is defined in opposition
to 'real' things such as economics and politics (where the
latter are denied to First Peoples). Culture is a bit like
playing dressing up. You can put culture on and take it off.
It does not lie at the core.

But if you opt for recognition of your traditional cultural
rights, and global forces insist that these rights be
recognised, then the 'cultural rights' will be prescribed to
comply with Western specifications and not elaborated
according to indigenous wisdom.

We, say the Western voices, will tell you what your culture
is allowed to consist of, and 'culture' is to exclude some
of the core things of life. It's a bit like saying you can
dress up as indigenous peoples but your genes belong to
others. It is a very narrow reading, and false view of,
culture.

Behind this lies a neo-colonial stereotype (and i ain't so
sure about the 'neo') which seeks to imprison life in a
prefabricated notion of 'tradition' - to construct wooden
representations of First Peoples which are not only done on
the cheap but will serve as substitutes for living peoples
in the 'mainstream' political and economic sphere.

It is, of course, by such complementary means of dominance
at the conceptual level that the marginalising practices
carve out the 'mainstream' and reserve positions of
privilege for a few. From this perspective, there is an
richly ironic quote coming up from the president of the
North Territory Minerals Council.

In a peoples struggle, First Peoples need to break free of
these wooden Indian representations to gain the space they
need, within Western life-thinking, for them to be able to
live full lives on their own terms.

WHO SPEAKS FROM THE EXCLUDED EASTERNISED PART OF BEING

But the really important issue is "Who is to say what is the
culture or cultures of First Peoples." Make no mistake about
the vital importance of this question. Life turns on the
subtle distinctions made. We will be expected to meekly
accept that the official cultural workers of the Anglo-Australia
system of patronage (who have a Westernised
view of everything) are the 'experts'.

These 'experts' are strategically located in universities;
special centres within universities; institutes; political
positions; courts; tribunals; representative bodies; large
land councils and so on. Whatever their differences in term
sof religious values, they know that they must make their
decisions in keeping with the recent Western secular rewrite
of life's rules. But First Peoples have kept alive a very
different Way.

The challenge is to get passed the official and accepted
'experts' who tell us how experience must be interpreted and
to make contact with the representatives of Australia's
First Peoples. Just what means of communication is open to
provide such a channel when the academic, political and
media channels are blocked? I am a firm believer that life
is full of surprises, and that life always find the way to
ensure that its voice and its messages get through.

But, meanwhile...

WESTERN REPRESENTATIVE FISCHER SPEAKS

I was listening to Acting Prime Minister Tim Fischer
speaking on the ABC radio this morning about the Wik made
easy package he released on the weekend. This package, it is
worth recording, was immediately condemned as election
propaganda by ATSIC spokesman Ray Robinson. The Coalition
government is preparing for its double dissolution election
and Wik later in the year.

Tim Fischer played on a distinction between the Western
fantasy of "cultural rights" as opposed to economic rights
in terms of First Peoples relations with their living
country. He also said, in an interview in the magazine of
the Weekend Australian, that he had no doubts that
Aboriginal people had a deeply spiritual relationship with
the land. I think the 'had' he used was past tense, and the
'spiritual' relationship was something which involved no
Western notions of economic and financial dimensions.

His line on the radio ran that, on those pastoral leases
where native title was regarded (by the Anglo-Australian
state) as not being extinguished by exclusive Crown grants,
it was acceptable for surviving First Peoples (who could
prove their native title in accordance with the Coalition's
strict criteria) to enjoy  cultural rights but not economic
rights.

The tenor of what he was saying was that 'natives' could
visit to hunt, fish and visit sites of significance (and
then, presumably, bugger off). What they should not be
involved in is decisions about the economic exploitation of
the land, which (again presumably) remains in the hands of
the Anglo- Australian Crown and those subject to its
patronage.

Not only were First Peoples not to be seen as partners in
resource development, the native title holders should not be
standing in the way of economic development. The Acting
Prime Minister made specific mention of the opposition of
traditional owners in the Northern Territory to the Jabiluka
uranium mine. (A situation covered by the Northern Territory
Aboriginal Land Rights Act as i understand it. I wonder who
has been chewing his ear while he is Acting PM?)

With the Anglo-Australian Crown itself captive to corporate
forces, placing more power in the hands of people like Tim
Fischer is a recipe for further abuse. Just who does the
Acting Prime Minister of Australia actually represent when
he can publicly campaign in this way for the denial of the
statutory rights and common law rights of a key component of
Australia's citizenry?

Such is the extent of institutionalised racism in Australia,
few of the other Australian citizens regard the Acting Prime
Minister's position as worthy of comment.

MINING INDUSTRY

I then re-read an article in this weekend's (10-11 Jan)
Weekend Australian, by David Nason, about the opposition of
the Northern Territory Minerals Council and the Australian
Minerals Council to the rights of First Peoples in relation
to mining on their land which are protected by the
Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act.

The Act is under review by John Reviews QC (and note that
the new deadline for submission has been extended to 21
January apparently to allow the NT Government to comply. The
original deadline was 31 December. Shift the goal posts?
Never!)

The same line of argument appears. David Nason reports:

     Australia's mining industry wants radical changes to
     Norther Territory land rights laws to prevent
     Aborigines using their veto powers over development as
     a bargaining chip in negotiations over exploration.

     The miners say the veto power, enshrined in the
     Commonwealth's 1976 Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act,
     should only be available for "cultural reasons".

     "The veto was never intended as a vehicle for
     Aborigines to maximise their financial return from
     mining companies," NT Minerals Council president Ken
     Loney said.

     "The veto is there only for those Aborigines with
     genuine cultural objections to mining on their
     traditional land.

     "Our proposal is that the veto remain but with changes,
     so that it acts fairly for all parties."

     The veto question is the most contentious issue in the
     review of NT land rights laws being conducted by former
     federal labor MP John Reeves, QC.

     Submissions totalling more than 1000 pages from the
     Northern and Central Land Councils have argued strongly
     that the veto, or "consent" power remain fully intact.

     But Mr Loney said the joint submission of the NTMC and
     the Australian Minerals Council would advocate
     Aborigines only have an "up-front" veto power.

     This would compel Aborigines to exercise the veto
     option prior to any negotiations with miners over
     compensation for exploration activity.

And here is the richly ironic quote i mentioned earlier:

     "We want some balance restored because the system has
     too often allowed Aborigines to skim the cream from
     potentially profitable mining ventures," Mr Loney said.

Well, now we know how to look at things! It is First Peoples
who are greedy and getting the cream!

The big open cut crater and numerous mine shafts at Tennant
Creek have returned not a cent to Warumungu people. And yet
they have suffered the whole social disaster of having
mining on their lands (as well as cattle). They are expected
to silently absorb the very real costs to well-being (you
pay with your life) associated with Australian mining
practices, but not to enjoy any of the minor benefits which
come from the limited recognition of their rights.

Don't we need to actively protest at this kind of message
from the officials of respectable Minerals Councils?

DOES THE CROWN OWN AUSTRALIAN MINERALS?

It is timely to remind ourselves that, contrary to the tame
position adopted by the statutory land councils and their
state paid public servants in the Northern Territory, that
the Anglo-Australian Crown is yet to demonstrate just how it
acquired rights of ownership of Australia's minerals from

First Peoples.

Let's not beat about the bush on this one. The Anglo-
Australian Crown once thought that it acquired ownership of
land when Sovereignty was proclaimed over First Peoples
living countries. The contrary view was highly inconvenient.
But eventually the price of maintaining that pretence was
just too high. The once orthodox view of the doctrine of
terra nullius is now obsolete.

And exactly the same situation prevails in regard to the
Anglo-Australian Crown's claim that ownership of minerals
rests with it.

In light of recent Canadian decisions, Australia's First
Peoples have never been better placed to state the obvious
and make a counter claim. They never surrendered their
native title rights to minerals, nor is it self-evidently
obvious that have those rights been properly acquired from
them by the Anglo-Australian Crown.

The proposition that the Anglo-Australian Crown has a
monopoly on the mineral wealth of Australia is good (to the
extent that any sovereign country's such assertions are
ultimately backed up by force) against all citizens except
Australia's surviving First Peoples.

Lacking a treaty with First Peoples, the Anglo-Australian
Crown can point to no legitimate basis for its claim of
ownership of minerals. First Peoples in the Norther
Territory, by contrast, can demonstrate their credentials
according to the indigenous system of law.

This usually is expressed in 'Dreaming' terms and may be by
way of a formally invoked ground paining (as was the case in
the original 1982 Warumungu land claim). I read the 1982
ground painting as the Great Seal on their claim to the
whole of life, not just to bits left over from the wrong way
Anglo- Australian land claim.

With the collapse of the pretences of the doctrine of terra
nullius, the Anglo-Australian Crown is now required to enter
into genuine negotiations with First Peoples in respect to
rights in minerals.

Seen in this light, the attempts of the Minerals Councils to
tinker with the veto rights in the Northern Territory may be
a diversion from the real question of sovereign risk. Good
government would acknowledge this risk, and immediately move
to seek to place life back on a sound footing. Seeking to
pretence, on the other hand, has proven to be a failed
policy.

HERE COMES THE NORTHERN TERRITORY GOVERNMENT

The same Weekend Australian story reports:

     The NT Government's final submission (to the Reeves
     review -R) goes to Cabinet on January 20.

     A spokesman said the submission would advocate the
     removal of the veto power in favour of the same
     Aboriginal right to negotiate provisions of the federal
     Native Title Act.

     "We think that the same rules that apply in the rest of
     Australia as regards Aboriginal rights over land should
     apply here too," he said.

I wonder, in light of the Canadian decision, just where that
will lead the NT Government - for we must now also rethink
the Coalition's amendments to the Native Title Act.

No doubt, that will require a High Court challenge.
Meanwhile, the Reeves Review will be one focus of interest.
But where is the voice of First Peoples in this review
process? By what means will John Reeves make meaningful
contact with the indigenous authorities? My guess - he
won't. He will settle for the pretence that the large land
council's, established by the Act he is reviewing, are
genuinely representative. It takes a special kind of insight
to challenge that view - one which has enables biculturalism
and dialogue to operate. Maybe he will surprise us.

NLC AND CLC - HOMES OF WESTERN FANTASIES

Both the Crown and the mining industry has a vested interest
in keeping the native title holders bluffed regarding the
Crown's claim to a monopoly on minerals. That is easy to
understand.  The privileged lifestyles of their peoples
depend on this view being accepted.

What is less easy to understand, unless you share this
writers view of the NLC and CLC as under the control of the
same Western alliance, is why their professional
representatives aren't saying what people on the ground will
tell you themselves - they have Dreaming rights in minerals,
even if those minerals are buried a mile under ground.

The view that the NLC and the CLC represent First Peoples is
itself a nice fantasy - one which soothes a largely middle
class consciousness in distant places. And acting out the
role is no problem for both those organisations, playing a
foil to the schemes of the Country-Liberal party Northern
Territory government and the mining industry.

But we must pause and ask ourselves "Hey, aren't the NLC and
CLC actually statutory authorities established by
legislation in Canberra? Don't they actually substitute
themselves for the original form of organisation which was
denied by the doctrine of terra nullius?" Haven't their
senior positions of power long been placed, by
Anglo-Australian power brokers, in the hands of 'reliable'
people who well understand what is to be said and what is to
be systematically excluded (such as the genuine views of the
First Peoples in whose name these organisations operate)?"

The thinking within the actual decision-making core within
the NLC and the CLC is entirely Western and serves Western
masters. In his early 1980s review of the Land Rights Act,
Justice John Toohey found that land council bureaucrats had
learnt to live with that Act's culturally inappropriate
definition of 'traditional Aboriginal owner' of land. First
Peoples hadn't, but that was beside the point! The
definition remained in place.

Their Anglo-Australian substitute had no problems with this
core feature of the legislation, and that was all that was
required for the one-sided culturally monologue to pass
superficial scrutiny as a genuine cross-cultural dialogue.

I wonder to what extent the review of the same Act by John
Reeves will escape from this trap? Even while talking about
"culture" (as a narrow and limited form of rights), culture
is excluded from the picture. There is no place for,say,
Warumungu culture in the Act's definition of 'traditional
Aboriginal owner' when it insists that they be members of a
'local descent group'. Hey, we are not like that!

Land claim research within the CLC and NLC has long been
under the control of land council staff power brokers who
insist that the requirements of the Anglo-Australian
legislation take complete precedence over the culture of
First Peoples.

GLOBAL FACTORS

 "Descent" thinking is kept in place by the forces of a
 Western alliance which seeks to minimise recognition of
 First Peoples rights in life and resources. The only reason
 it seeks even this minimal recognition is because it has no
 choice in the matter. Global factors (not intrinsic
 considerations) require the pretences of the show - a
 mega-cluster of pretences which sweep out of Europe over
 the last 500 years and which First Peoples everywhere have
 had to contend.

A shorthand way of characterising these pretences is that
they seem to have a single aim - propping up the pretence
that the Western Way is superior and all others must give
way before it.

The fractal image in the NT land rights act provides a micro
example of the macro level - it is more important to
enshrine the thinking of that great Western icon, Darwin, by
making 'descent' the focus of the land rights claim process
than it is to acknowledge the immense wisdom of First
Peoples thinkers and life-managers which places the emphasis
on entirely different concerns.

The whole Aboriginal Land Rights Act is an imperial Act of
dominance and control of First Peoples lives. It is not
something which genuinely recognises First Peoples. And
belongs to a rapidly disappearing age. Our world just cannot
afford to prop up Western fantasies any longer. "Sorry
chaps, the party is over."

A GLIMPSE OF FIRST PEOPLES POSITION

To the extent that minerals are disturbed, First Peoples
Being is diminished. In keeping with the age old norms which
keep life on track, any diminishment must be
counter-balanced by something of real and equivalent value
to restore life to its original full condition.

This is the formula which underlies the falsely objectified
notion of 'tradition' as a wooden Indian. Life is dynamic
and ongoing - the composition of the recent past is itself
the result of a great number of interactions and balanced
exchanges.

The false view of tradition and culture is that which seeks
to arrest the process - to turn it off - to say that
entering into moral and ethical and balanced exchange
relationships with indigenous peoples does not apply to us!

And this is the view that is rapidly emerging at the highest
levels of Anglo-Australian life as the twentieth century
draws to a close. We are not talking about the 1850s here.

CO-EXISTING RIGHTS IN MINERALS

There is a great deal to be gained (as an out-and-out deal)
by shifting from the attempt to dominant First Peoples and
entering into a strategic alliance which treats them
(literally) as partners in resource development.

Recognising the native title rights in minerals, and paying
a fair price for the removal of non-renewal assets, needs
serious examination as a means of restoring balance into
Australian life.

It is particularly important in any such scheme which goes
down this path is to insist that the senior law people are
the ones empowered by the payment of 'royalties'. The
present set- up, endorsed by those paid for by
Anglo-Australian/Western alliance system of patronage,
empowers bureaucrats long before it empowers the culture
carriers which make it all possible.

Those days must be ended if balance is to be restored to
life. We must go well beyond the secularism of the States
new priestly classes. The secular view ties in very nicely
with the commercial when it comes to looking at 'minerals'.
Those mineralisations/orebodies may also be the eternal
resting bodies of life's Dreaming prototypical Beings
(Ancestral bodies).  Westerners are playing around with the
eternal life- design when they mine - with forces which they
are not presently well equipped to factor into life's major
decision- making.

Acknowledging the rights of First Peoples in 'minerals' is a
crucial step in healing life. First - your own, then - the
world.
                          SHORT STORY

ACTION

It is clear that we cannot expect the experts or
professional representatives to take up the issue of
recognising First Peoples in minerals. Once again, it is up
to a movement of people to change these things. People means
you and me.

Combat the submissions of the powerful miners through their
faceless Minerals Councils; their agents in the Country-
Liberal Party Northern Territory government and their mates
in the Prime Ministers Office.

The message is simple:

     Recognise Australia's First Peoples Dreaming and native
     title rights in minerals.

STEP ONE: THIS WEEK

Add your voice to those who say that First Peoples have
rights in minerals, send a message to the Reeves Review by
21 January and marked "In Confidence"

     Mr John Reeves QC
     Office of the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Review
     GPO Box 927
     Darwin Northern Territory 0801

     Phone (08) 89460633  Fax (08) 89460630

STEP TWO: NEXT WEEK

Lobby National Peoples Convention delegates for
constitutional recognition of First Peoples native title
rights including those to minerals.

STEP THREE:

Lobby Federal Parliament for the amendments to the Native
Title Act to be reworked in keeping with recent Canadian
decisions which recognise mineral rights as part of native
title rights.

STEP FOUR:

Lobby the Unions in the mining sector to enter into dialogue
with indigenous authrorities regarding whether or not they
should be handling minerals which may not have been properly
acquired.

We are moving, people.

Bruce Reyburn
12 January 1998

Back to top

Disclaimer

EarthWINS Daily is a project of EarthWINS.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, material in this issue of EarthWINS Daily is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. **

The articles in EarthWINS Daily are PHOTOCOPIES for personal informational purposes--please seek reprint permission directly from the source listed. You are encouraged to utilize this information for personal campaign use; including writing letters, organizing campaigns and forwarding. All efforts are made to provide accurate, timely pieces; though ultimate responsibility for verifying all information rests with the reader.

If you distribute information contained in EarthWINS Daily, please:

(1) Copy the information in its exact form,
(2) Cite the author, publisher, and date of the information.
(3) Include this subscription information for EarthWINS Daily - 

To subscribe to EarthWINS Daily send an email to 
EarthWINS-Daily-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Subscribe to EarthWINS_Daily

EarthWINS P O Box 573 Shawano, WI 54166 Ph: 715-524-5998 FAX (call first): 715-524-9958 EarthWINS-Daily@earthwins.com www.earthwins.com

Please sign my guestbook

Back to top