All this talk in California about large tribes, small tribes, rich tribes and poor tribes...

There is much dialogue in the debate over the future of Indian gaming in California and frequent references to large tribes, small tribes, rich tribes, poor tribes and so on ...

In an attempt to bring some clarity and truth to the debate we've discovered the California Gambling Control Commission has published a list of the 55 tribal casinos in California with a count of each tribe's gaming devices as of March 2006.

We've expanded that chart and added data to indicate approximate number of residents living on reservation/tribal enrollment numbers. The source of that data was primarily gathered from the California State University's Infodome library resource; and as an alternative source the U.S. Census data.

There is no clear correlation between the size of a tribe and the size of its casino. To say the "large tribes" control things is not necessarily true. Nor is it true to suggest the "large" tribes stand in the way of the "smaller" tribes.

The larger non-gaming tribes (500+ members) are generally the tribes with the greatest economic and quality of life challenges.

California's RSTF makes it less likely that the "smaller" tribes are faced with poverty level living circumstances and so to refer to those tribe's as "poor" may no longer be accurate.

We don't refer to 99% of the U.S. population as "poor" just because relative to the other 1% who control 24% of the wealth that might be true.

Tribes with 50 members or less which benefit from California's RSTF would receive $22,000 per member tax free each year. On average, that's at least $44,000 tax free per household -- more if the tribe has less than 50 members. The median household income for families in California is $48,000 before taxes.