As reported by: The Billings Gazette
Frustrated representatives from six of Montana's seven Indian reservations said Wednesday that they want the expanded gambling opportunities envisioned by a federal law, but the state refuses to allow them in negotiations.

Roger Running Crane of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation told the state Gaming Advisory Council there's no real negotiating with the state over gambling issues in compacts, just a one-size fits all for each reservation.

"It's a cookie cutter approach they throw down there," Running Crane said.



Charlene Alden, gaming manager for the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, said her tribe wants to have more video gambling machines and higher maximum winnings.

"The state of Montana has very limited gaming," she said. "Why can't we have as many machines as we want? Why can't we pay out want we want?"

Added Pete Lamere, chairman of the gaming committee on the Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation: "If we want to pay out $5,000 or $10,000, that is an issue that should be left to us." State law limits maximum payouts to $800, although some tribal-state compacts allow twice that amount.

State officials, however, said that the tribes want to negotiate to get games legalized on reservations, such as slot machines and blackjack, that aren't legal under state law.

Those decisions are up to the Legislature and aren't subject to negotiations, said Gene Huntington, administrator of the state Gambling Control Division.

"The range of possibilities for the Legislature is as broad as the imagination," said Sarah Bond, an assistant attorney general.

Montana's constitution prohibits gambling unless certain games are authorized by the Legislature or a vote of the people through a ballot issue, he said. Video poker and keno, bingo, poker and certain card games, sports pools and fantasy sports leagues are legal under Montana law, he said.

Up for negotiations with tribes, Huntington said, are the amount of payouts, the number of gambling machines allowed, the hours a casino or bar may offer gambling and other issues.

The Gaming Advisory Council, which advises the state Justice Department that regulates gambling in Montana, plans to appoint a subcommittee to study the issue further. Its chairman, Sen. Dale Mahlum, R-Missoula, encouraged officials from the different reservations to work together and agree on some common legislative proposals and push to see them passed.

Leaders from six of the Indian reservations - all but the Fort Belknap - accepted the council's invitation to offer their perspectives on gambling and compact negotiations with the state.

All of the tribal officials said they aren't being able to realize the promise of the 1988 federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that they said was intended to stimulate the Indian reservations' economies with gambling, as they said has been the case in other states.

Ranald McDonald, managing attorney for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes on the Flathead Indian Reservation, said that law was intended to give tribes "an economic advantage" to support their infrastructures, but it isn't happening here.

Urban Bear Don't Walk of the Crow Indian Reservation added, "What we do know is that the field is not level right now."

"We think it's an opportunity for us to generate income," Lamere said. "Nobody's going to help us. We're tired of living the way we have. We'd like to have some new opportunities."

Robert McAnally of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation said if expanded gambling is approved, "it is a potential economic boost for the state." Under compacts, he said, it's possible for the state to negotiate revenue-sharing agreements with consenting tribes. His tribe offered to give the state 10 percent of added revenue if it could offer blackjack.

"When we say, 'Give us a competitive edge,' they say, 'That's against motherhood and apple pie,'" McAnally said, adding: "We don't have the games to pull people off the highway."

Assistant Attorney General Bond, one of the state's negotiators in compacts with tribes, said the tribes as a group hadn't brought their concerns to the advisory council.

"This may be a first step for making change," she said, adding: "This may be the logjam breaking."