NATIVE_NEWS: Fwd: Native Planet Foods Gears Up for Growth
And now:Ish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 09:19:02 EDT Subject: Native Planet Foods Gears Up for Growth Native Planet Foods Gears Up for Growth SCOTTSDALE, Ariz.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 28, 1999--Native Planet Foods Inc. announced this week that it has retained the investment banking firm Sutro Co. Inc. as private placement agent for the Scottsdale-based company. Native Planet Foods' highly successful branded food products include Frutazza(R) fruit smoothies and Pima Naturals(TM) herbal supplements. The company also has developed the expanding Frozen Fusion(TM) franchise. The company's rapid growth in these areas has created an outstanding institutional investment opportunity to help Native Planet Foods exploit its multi-channel growth strategy in the healthy foods market. In addition to funding internal growth, funds from the private placement will help capitalize the company for acquisitions of other complementary companies and product lines with defined market niches in the area of healthy living food products. Frozen Fusion(TM), the company's retail concept, operates a rapidly growing national chain of franchised real fruit smoothie stores which has expanded from one store to more than 25, with commitments for 70 more stores nationwide. The company's real fruit smoothie product for the foodservice market, Frutazza(R), was recently awarded best tasting smoothie by the American Tasting Institute and cited on the cover of the 1999 Branding America Conference Expo. Frutazza(R) is currently sold in more than 1,100 locations nationwide, including the leading contract management companies and large Quick Serve Restaurant operators. Native Planet Foods also owns the Miss Karen's(TM) brand of frozen yogurt, which it sells nationally to hospitals, school and restaurants, among other venues. This year, the company introduced a line of individually packaged herbal supplements, Pima Naturals(TM), whose sales to foodservice outlets and convenience stores are exceeding all expectations. Headquartered in Arizona, Native Planet Foods Inc. is a privately held corporation owned by the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. Native Planet Foods is dedicated to the creation of products and services designed to promote a healthy lifestyle. A portion of the proceeds from Native Planet Foods Inc. is used within the Salt River-Maricopa Indian Community for social and educational programs. CONTACT: Native Planet Foods Inc. Dan Buckstaff, 480/367-5501 or Sutro Co. David Goberville, 310/914-0782 or Burchfield Wolin Stephanie Burchfield, 602/460-4111 (Media Relations) Reprinted under the fair use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law. Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/
NATIVE_NEWS: Teaming with Wildlife Bill
And now:Ish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: via Martha Sender: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Wendee Holtcamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: "Teaming with Wildlife" Bill To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I discovered an interesting Congressional bill that will affect all of us who care about and study wildlife. If you're so inclined, I hope you'll write your Senators and Reps (and state governors since it affects them too) about it and also become more informed about the bill. (URLs below) The Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 (HR 701, S 25) would provide states with a continuous source of federal funds for non-game conservation and research. The revenue would come from redirecting 50% of the revenue from offshore oil and gas drilling leases that currently goes to the federal treasury to the states. In some states it would increase funds for non-game species from the $thousands the state generates to $millions. The funds would go to three things: Title I: Coastal Impact Assistance; Title II: Land-Based recreation; Title III: Wildlife Conservation and Restoration. The Title III is similar to a previous bill that was known as "Teaming with Wildlife" that would have brought funds from taxes to outdoor rec equipment. (Similar to Dingell-Johnson, Pittman-Robertson). According to a quote on the Teaming for Wildlife web site "We continue to urge members of Congress to modify the language to ensure that nongame wildlife conservation aimed at preventing species from becoming threatened and endangered will be the focus of this new fund. No, the new subaccount will not be limited to birds and mammals, but will be available to benefit a wide array of fish and wildlife including reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates." The Teaming with Wildlife web site is at: http://www.teaming.com/ It has an excellent background of the bill, supporters, timeline in Congress etc. They recommend contacting your state governor, and a list of their addresses and emails is at: http://www.teaming.com/gover.htm and key members of Congress and your Reps who can be found at http://www.teaming.com/letter.htm Reprinted under the fair use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law. Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/
NATIVE_NEWS: Expert Testimony versus Junk Science
And now:Ish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Expert Testimony versus Junk Science http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1993/101-3/forum.html#expert Expert Testimony versus Junk Science On March 30, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that may determine what standards should apply to the scientific evidence on which expert testimony is based. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, parents of children born with structural birth defects alleged that the defects were caused by Bendectin, an antinausea drug given to the mothers during pregnancy. Arguments on each side centered around the admissibility of expert testimony concerning the scientific evidence linking Bendectin to limb deformities. A federal trial court in California refused to admit the scientific testimony provided by experts for the children's families, declaring that the opinions of the experts were based on animal studies suggesting that the chemical structure of the drug is similar to other known chemical teratogens and reanalyses of the data from studies on human cells. The court considered these techniques experimental and held that they did not meet the 1923 appellate court standard permitting only expert testimony based on scientific methods generally accepted by members of the scientific community (i.e., methods that had been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals). The district court ruled for Merrell Dow, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the evidence from animal studies was insufficient and that the human cell study "reanalyses" had "neither been published nor subjected to the rigors of peer review. Although the qualifications of these experts were never disputed, their opinions were not allowed because they were inconsistent with the conclusions of studies that had been peer reviewed and published. The United States Supreme Court must now rule on whether, as the attorneys for the children's families contend, the 1923 standard has been superseded by the Federal Rules of Evidence, established by Congress in 1975, which state that all relevant evidence should be admitted. The attorneys for the children's families are arguing for the more lenient standard of the federal rules which would allow the testimony and leave it to the jury to decide on its credibility. Attorneys for Merrell Dow counter that what some call "junk science" including experimental techniques and testimony from scientific "hired guns" tends only to mislead or confuse the fact-finding process and should not be admitted. The case has great implications for environmental and toxic tort litigation and is being closely monitored by scientists, environmental and consumer advocacy groups, industry, and attorneys in environmental law. More than 20 groups have filed "friend of the court" briefs expressing support for both sides of the issue. The Na-tional Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have joined the Chemical Manufacturers Association and the National Association of Manufacturers in petitioning the Supreme Court to allow only peer-reviewed scientific evidence in personal damages cases. The American Trial Law-yers Association, the National Resources Defense Council, several highly respected epidemiologists, and state governments have filed briefs with the Court arguing that expert opinions must be admitted in these cases. The Court is expected to rule on the case by the close of summer session. [For instance..any scientific studies unable to gain peer review (such as the fluoride studies) would not be permitted as testimony..see previous e-mail on fluoride..Ish] Reprinted under the fair use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law. Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/
NATIVE_NEWS: Who Decides the Law of the Land?
And now:Ish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Who Decides the Law of the Land? http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/qa/106-2spheres/spheres.html While the United States hurtles towards the twenty-first century, the American-Indian nations within its borders are struggling to maintain the ancient customs and traditions that define their cultures. A cornerstone of these cultures is a deep sense of interconnectedness with the natural environment--the tribes see themselves as being as much a part of the landscape as they are dependent upon its natural resources to survive. American Indians, therefore, view the purity of the land as paramount to their continued existence. "Our culture is derivative of the natural resources," says Stuart Harris, a Cayuse Indian and a senior staff scientist with the Department of Natural Resources for the 3,000-member Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, based in northeastern Oregon. "If our culture dies, the only remnants are its physical attributes, which will soon be dispersed to the natural environment. If that happens, there will be no trace of our living culture." And yet, most American Indian tribes are faced with a number of significant environmental problems. Basic necessities such as safe drinking water and sewage treatment are frequently in short supply. Many reservations are located in remote areas without municipal landfills, and it is not uncommon for waste to accumulate to levels that pose an environmental hazard. A number of tribes are located adjacent to hazardous waste sites. Chemical wastes emanating from these sites have been known to contaminate waterways on tribal lands and pollute fish, which are a staple of many Indian diets. Midnight dumping, whereby solid, liquid, and sometimes hazardous wastes are abandoned in open, unregulated areas by tribal members and non-Indians alike, is a persistent problem. For some tribes, the accumulated impact of these activities has created a state of environmental crisis. Sovereign Status--No Guarantees Whereas environmental problems are also shared by other minority groups in the United States, American Indians are unique because, in addition to their status as U.S. citizens, many of them are also members of federally recognized sovereign nations that, in theory, have the authority to manage their environmental problems independently. Like many other American Indians, Harris believes that the key to the preservation of tribal lands and culture is sovereignty. As sovereign nations, the tribes can make laws governing the conduct of Indians in "Indian country" (an all-encompassing term that refers to all existing American Indian tribes, governments, people, and territory); establish tribal police and court systems; regulate hunting, fishing, land use, and environmental pollution; and levy taxes. Similar to individual states, tribal nations can also apply for and assume enforcement responsibility for federal environmental programs. Nonetheless, a number of shortcomings continue to weaken tribal authority over environmental affairs. One chronic problem is that Indian governments, with few exceptions, are woefully understaffed, poorly trained, and low on funds. Jurisdiction over non-Indians residing both within and adjacent to Indian country is also a difficult political and legal issue, and tribal attempts to regulate non-Indian polluters are frequently bogged down in the courts. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the tribes and the federal government often find themselves separated by a profound cultural divide, across which both sides must carefully navigate as they attempt to communicate with each other and agree on common goals. end excerpt Reprinted under the fair use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law. Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/
NATIVE_NEWS: LANL Storage Facility Falls Short of Purpose
And now:"Save Ward Valley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sunday, June 27, 1999 LANL Storage Facility Falls Short of Purpose By Ian Hoffman Journal Staff Writer For more than $20 million, here is what U.S. taxpayers got: virtually nothing. What they were supposed to get was a high-tech tomb for tons of nuclear weapons-grade plutonium and other metals inside a top-security area at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Yet quietly, the U.S. nuclear-weapons establishment has scuttled the Nuclear Materials Storage Facility, or NMSF. Los Alamos' NMSF is no casualty of the end of the Cold War, however. It was, by all accounts, killed primarily by incompetence. The NMSF was so deeply flawed, so poorly designed that it reportedly could never store even a few pounds of plutonium when "completed" in 1987. U.S. Department of Energy executives pulled the plug on NMSF a few weeks ago. They plan to spend more money figuring out what went wrong, why the cost of fixing NMSF doubled in two years to nearly $114 million, more than five times the original construction cost. But NMSF's most fundamental flaws, the reasons its storage vault never opened, are clear from DOE in Los Alamos reports: * If you worked at NMSF, there was a good chance you would be irradiated. To reach the storage vault, workers hauling containers of nuclear materials would walk past the desks of office workers. Office workers also had no radiation shielding from the storage vault, which vented unfiltered air into their offices as well. * The vault was designed so containers of weapons metals were too close, and cooling air could not remove the heat of their radioactive decay. * The loading-bay doors are too narrow. This means the government's "Safe-Secure" tractor trailers for hauling nuclear-weapons parts could pull in, but not open their doors. * The roof is cracked and could not support its proposed cover of dirt in an earthquake. * NMSF's concrete is weakening prematurely. * A special "Placite" wall paint to make decontamination easier is peeling off the walls. * Two gas-fired furnaces intended to be walled off by concrete were instead located inside the storage area, increasing the risk of an explosion in a room full of plutonium. So who wasted millions on a useless building? In short, almost everyone involved, a LANL official says. Rising expense "There's enough blame to go around," said Scott Gibbs, Los Alamos National Laboratory's program director for nuclear-weapons materials and manufacturing. Gibbs inherited the unusable NMSF recently and led the last study on fixing it. Some blame goes to architecture and engineering giant Burns Roe Inc. and to Santa Fe construction contractor Davis and Associates, DOE investigators found. But most of the blame lies with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of Energy and the operator of the national laboratory, the University of California. They were to design NMSF and manage its construction. "There were enough things wrong to share the blame among DOE, the Corps and the university," Gibbs said. "Nobody covered themselves with glory." Laboratory managers and their overseers at the Energy Department still were unwilling for at least 12 years to cut their losses and walk away. So the 30,000-square-foot NMSF persisted, drawing Congress to appropriate at least $10 million in the last decade for studies and design reviews. In each, reports show the pricetag to rebuild NMSF jumped -- from at least $13.5 million in 1992, to $45.3 million in 1996, to $56.7 million in 1998 and finally to more than $100 million. Those costs were for gutting and rebuilding the entire facility, possibly expanding its maximum storage capacity from 7.25 tons of weapons materials to as much as 27.5 tons. Yet Energy officials classified the project as "routine maintenance" and "air-conditioning repairs." Those classifications allowed the project to avoid full-scale environmental reviews that may have opened the rebuilding of NMSF to broader public debate and possible litigation. By late December, NMSF rebuild costs were estimated to go much higher. The reasons are somewhat vague, but higher standards for nuclear facilities such as better electrical feeds and more concrete walls to shore up the facility against earthquakes played a role. "None of these are very fancy changes, not very exciting really," Gibbs said. "But when you're modifying a facility to standards expected by the public of nuclear facilities today, it takes a bit of rigor and quite a bit of money to do that." These added perhaps $20 million, but fall short of explaining why the final repair estimates ran over $100 million. "We're going back and looking at this project to do a formal 'lessons learned,' " Gibbs said, using DOE's term for dissecting failed projects. "We're going to look at why we're seeing this growth (in rebuilding costs)." 'Cost overruns' In any event, it was clear Congress would never fund anything like $100-plus
NATIVE_NEWS: ENVIRO: Our Stolen Future (RA)
And now:Ish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: REAL AUDIO AT: http://www.enn.com/enn-multimedia-archive/1999/06/062899/062899huma_4020.ram Book explores effects of chemicals on humans and environment Monday, June 28, 1999 The new book, Our Stolen Future, points out that chemicals shown to disrupt human hormone activity are not found just in pesticides but are also present in everyday products such as household cleaners and cosmetics. EarthNews (1:30) Click here to listen Copyright 1999, Environmental News Network, All Rights Reserved Reprinted under the fair use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law. Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/
NATIVE_NEWS: Are common chemicals scrambling your hormones?
And now:Ish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are common chemicals scrambling your hormones? http://www.usaweekend.com/98_issues/980215/980215hormones.html Ingredients in shampoos, dyes and detergents may be mixing up your hormonal signals. No one knows for sure, but the EPA is stepping up research. By Brenda Biondo OZENS OF synthetic chemicals found in our food, environment and everyday products have proven harmful to wildlife and lab animals. Now there's a new focus on whether they're putting people at risk, too, by playing havoc with hormones that control reproduction and development. "Hormone disruption has emerged as one of our top research priorities over the past couple of years," says Lawrence Reiter at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. After reviewing nearly 300 studies, the EPA concluded in 1997 that hormone-disrupting chemicals "can lead to disturbing health effects in animals, including cancer, sterility and developmental problems." The agency said the jury is still out on whether these chemicals -- many originating in pesticides, plastics and industrial pollutants -- are causing similar problems in humans. But it called for stepped-up research because of potential risks, especially for children. THE RISK FOR BOTH SEXES The stakes are high because hormones play such a crucial role in body functions. Produced by the endocrine glands, hormones act as chemical messengers that tell cells in organs and tissues what to do. Hormones like estrogen and testosterone, for example, help determine how sex organs develop and function. Scientists want to know if man-made chemicals that can interfere with the hormonal system are responsible for plummeting sperm counts in men in many parts of the world and for other problems such as the dramatic increase in a defect of the penis in U.S. newborns. Also of concern: whether girls are reaching puberty unnaturally early. A recent study of 17,000 U.S. girls showed that 48 percent of black girls and 15 percent of white girls showed signs of puberty by age 8. Doctors offer several explanations, some benign. One is that "normal" development ages may be based on flawed data, or that better nutrition in recent decades has had an impact. But some researchers worry that ingredients in some shampoos, dyes and detergents are absorbed through the skin and then scramble hormonal signals. INDUSTRY CAN'T IGNORE IT A number of people believe there's already ample evidence to indict several chemicals. "At what point do you say there are enough red flags?" asks University of Missouri biology professor Frederick vom Saal, one of several experts working with the National Academy of Sciences on the issue. Vom Saal says his research shows a chemical in the lining of cans leaches into food in amounts capable of disrupting hormones in humans. The chemical industry sees things differently. Hormone disruption "is a plausible hypothesis; you can't walk away and ignore it," says Jon Holtzman of the Chemical Manufacturers Association. But so far, he says, "the replicated, peer-reviewed research has not turned up significant problems." His group is spending $4 million in the next two years to research the issue. end excerpt ALSO SEE: Hormone Disrupting Chemicals http://www.envirotrust.com/soutline.html General Information A Science Summary NET Reports 1. Hormone Disruptors in the Great Lakes Region 2. Great Lakes Background Fact Sheet. Our Stolen Future Scientific Summary Neurological and Behavorial Effects http://www.envirotrust.com/stoleover.html Then check your area by zipcode at: www.scorecard.org to see who in your area is emitting these chemicals "legally" Reprinted under the fair use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law. Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/
NATIVE_NEWS: Judge Orders Release of Grizzly Comments ~with identities
And now:Ish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:34:31 -0600 To: "Wild Rockies Alerts" [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Alliance for the Wild Rockies [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Judge Orders Release of Grizzly Comments A News Release from Alliance for the Wild Rockies PO Box 8731, Missoula, MT 59807 406-721-5420 Fax: 406-721-9917 JUDGE ORDERS RELEASE OF BITTERROOT GRIZZLY COMMENTS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 28, 1999 Contact: Mike Bader, (406)721-5420 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] MISSOULA, MT-- In a major national precedent-setting ruling, federal Judge Stanley Sporkin has ruled that the U.S. Fish Wildlife Service may not withhold the identities of persons who submitted public comments on the proposed reintroduction of grizzly bears to the Bitterroot ecosystem. Alliance for the Wild Rockies and its director Mike Bader challenged the agency's refusal to release the full, unredacted public comment record in federal court after they denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. "Contrary to defendants' assertions, the Court finds that the public interest in full disclosure of the written comments clearly outweighs the commenters' privacy interests, if any, in nondisclosure of their names and addresses," wrote Sporkin. Eric Glitzenstein, an attorney in Washington, D.C. who argued the case, said, "Judge Sporkin's ruling is a victory for the public's right to know and for common sense. But the most outrageous aspect of the case is the Interior Department's insistence on wasting taxpayer money defending its absurd effort to censor a public rulemaking record on such an important topic." Judge Sporkin noted that the Fish Wildlife Service made it abundantly clear in its public notice that individuals who submitted comments would not have their identities concealed, writing, "...it is remarkable that defendants object to disclosure of the names and addresses of the commenters." "This is a very big victory for our public process," said Mike Bader, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. "The government attempted to take a public process and keep part of it secret. Now the public will have a better view of what role public comments played in the final decision on Bitterroot grizzly bear reintroduction." Alliance for the Wild Rockies filed suit in federal court in Washington, D.C. after the government refused to provide the comments pursuant to the FOIA. The Fish Wildlife Service had tried to claim "special circumstances" which would allow them to sidestep the requirements of the FOIA. "In this instance, the public has much to learn about defendants' rulemaking process from the disclosure of commenters' names and addresses," wrote Sporkin. "The public will be able to determine whether defendants used the written comments in reaching a final rule; whether the defendants give greater weight to the comments submitted by experts in the field over the comments of laypeople; whether the defendants distinguish between multiple comments submitted by a single contributor when quantifying public sentiment; and whether the defendants give greater weight to the comments submitted by residents of the Bitterroot region and the outlying regions than to the comments submitted by those who do not live within close proximity to the Bitterroot region." Judge Sporkin ordered the government to promptly make available to plaintiffs all written comments without redaction of commenters' names and addresses. The ruling is a major setback to the Department of the Interior, which has increasingly tried to withhold portions of public comment records on several controversial management plans involving public lands and wildlife. *** Alliance for the Wild Rockies P.O. Box 8731 Missoula, MT 59807 406-721-5420 406-721-9917 (fax) http://www.wildrockies.org/awr [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List-Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] News Submissions or Problems: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This list is a public service provided by WIN: http://www.wildrockies.org Reprinted under the fair use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law. Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/
NATIVE_NEWS: SD: White Clay: Governor, Indians to Meet
And now:Ish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks to Mike for this link..:) June 28, 1999 Governor, Indians to Meet http://omaha.com/Omaha/OWH/StoryViewer/1%2C3153%2C178569%2C00.html BY TODD VON KAMPEN WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER Pine Ridge, S.D. - Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns plans to meet with Pine Ridge Indian Reservation leaders and Sheridan County, Neb., elected officials sometime during the next two weeks. The meetings are in response to the weekend's violence-marred "rally for justice" march from Pine Ridge to nearby Whiteclay, Neb., which ended with looting of a grocery store that was also set on fire. Oglala Sioux leaders said Saturday's event wouldn't be the last demonstration of tribal claims to Whiteclay. Johann's staff was working Monday with the Nebraska Indian Commission to set up the meeting as early as this week, said Chris Peterson, a Johann's aide. The meetings will not take place in Whiteclay, Peterson said. They will probably be in Lincoln or in Scottsbluff or Gering, Neb., where Johanns has previously scheduled visits planned. Johanns is eager to meet with the Indian leaders, Peterson said. Tom Poor Bear, an organizer of Saturday's event, said Sunday that neither a visit by Johanns nor a break in the investigations into the deaths of two Sioux men three weeks ago will stop Indians from trying to halt Whiteclay's bustling beer trade or asserting that the reservation once again includes the town of about 25. "To me, even if the case is solved - which I pray and hope for - and Whiteclay is still open, I feel there will be more Lakota deaths if Whiteclay is kept open," he said over a hamburger and fries at Big Bat's Texaco. "It will not end until it is closed down and the land is back in the hands of the Lakota people." Poor Bear is a half-brother of Wilson "Wally" Black Elk Jr., 40, and a cousin of Ronald Hard Heart, 39, whose bodies were found June 8 just inside the reservation's borders about one-quarter mile north of Whiteclay. Saturday's rally was triggered by a lack of law enforcement information on the deaths, frustration over Whiteclay's alcohol business and allegations of racism by Sheridan County residents and law enforcement officials. Johanns said Sunday from Lincoln that while the two Sioux deaths were tragic, arson is illegal. "It's a very sad statement. It doesn't promote any cause," Johanns said. "The people responsible will be held responsible. . . . Two hundred and fifty people got together, and the adrenalin started pumping." American Indian Movement leaders Russell Means, Dennis Banks and Clyde Bellecourt will return next weekend, Poor Bear said. Banks and Bellecourt left Sunday for their homes in Minneapolis. Means was to leave Monday for his home in California, Poor Bear said. A letter signed by Sioux spiritual leader Oliver Red Cloud was to be sent Monday to Johanns, asking him to be present at the end of another Indian walk to Whiteclay, Poor Bear said. He also planned to contact the U.S. Justice Department, the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, the Nebraska Indian Commission and the Sheridan County Chamber of Commerce. "It's not going to be a letter demanding the governor be here," he said. "It's going to be an invitation for him to come down and deal with this matter in a responsible way." Johanns noted that he has visited all the American Indian reservations in Nebraska. Johanns said AIM members' demands to return Whiteclay to the Oglala Sioux were rhetoric. "They know I don't control that land," he said. Nebraska law enforcement officials reopened Whiteclay to traffic Sunday, but Nebraska State Patrol cars and Sheridan County Sheriff's Office cruisers were in full view. Whiteclay's handful of businesses remained closed Sunday, including the four beer outlets and VJ's Market, the looted store. Most businesses appeared to be reopening Monday, said Tom Hotz, owner of the Whiteclay Jack and Jill. Whiteclay was quiet after the Saturday violence, said Terri Teuber, spokeswoman for the Nebraska State Patrol. Most residents left town Saturday to spend the night elsewhere. They began returning Sunday. Troopers scaled back their presence Sunday and Monday. When the rally began, leaders led the walkers through Whiteclay, then turned around and returned to the north edge of town for speeches. About 1:45 p.m., the rally appeared to be breaking up. Some demonstrators who had scattered up and down Whiteclay's four-block-long main street tore down the "Welcome to Nebraska" sign and carted it off to the other end of town, egged on by rally leaders. "Let's take that Nebraska sign back where it belongs - way over there!" Poor Bear said as the sign came down. About 25 to 30 people then started throwing cans at the windows of VJ's, after which an unknown number of people broke into the store, looted it and started a fire. After Nebraska, South Dakota and tribal police moved in and firefighters from Pine Ridge tried to contain the fire, Poor Bear and other rally
