The Effects of Gaming on the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

1. The Effects of Gaming on the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

2. The Tribe • Reservation: 3,666 acres • Members: approximately 3,000 people • Today’s Location: Lincoln City, Oregon • Original Location: Coastal region of Northern CA.- Southwestern WA.

3. Tribes Bands • Alsea • Chasta Scoton • Coos • Coquille • Chetco • Nestucca • Rogue River (Takelma) • Port Orford • Shasta • Siuslaw • Tillamook • Tututni • Umpqua • Yaquina • Cow Creek • Joshua • Galice Creek • Flores Creek • Euchee • Applegate • Nehalem • Siletz • Chasta Costa • Sixes • Nolthatnah • Mac-en-noot-e-way • Delwashe • Pistol River

4. Note: The Tillamook, Nestucca and Yaquina tribes were assigned to the agency, no data available Table 1. Census Report of Siletz 1865 (redrawn from Kent 1977:47)

5. Timeline • Established in 1855 • Terminated in 1956 • Regained Federal Recognition in 1977 • Gained the Right to Self Govern in 1992 • Opened the Chinook Winds Casino in 1995

6. Native Gaming • Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA)- 1988 • This act “gives tribes the exclusive right to regulate gaming on Indian lands within the states that do not prohibit such gaming as a matter of criminal law or public policy” (Hick 2006:110).

7. Uses of Funds • Fund tribal government operations or programs • Provide for the general welfare of the Indian tribe and its members • Promote tribal economic development, • Donate to charitable organizations, or • Help fund operations of local government agencies

8. Crime Rate Change in Oregon and Lincoln City Table 2. Crime Rate Change in Oregon and Lincoln City (redrawn from ECONorthwest 1999: 27)

9. Benefits of Gaming Table 2. Tribal Expenditures on Non-Gaming Activities-1998 (redrawn from ECONorthwest 1999:4)

10. References • California State University San Marcos • 2008 A Brief Interpretive History of the Rogue River War and the Coast, Alsea, and Siletz Reservations to 1894. Electronic document, http://www.csusm.edu/nadp/subject.htm, accessed on March 2. • Confederated Tribes of Siletz • 2008 History and Culture. Electronic Document, http://ctsi.nsn.us/History_and_Culture.html, accessed February 20. • Culin, Stewart • 1992 Games of the North American Indians Vol. 1: Games of Chance. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. • Cushman, Candi • 2007 Indian Gaming Hurts Tribes. In Opposing Viewpoints: Gambling. David Haugen and Susan Musser, eds. Pp. 54-62. CA: Thomson Gale. • Economics Resource Group • 2002 Indian Gaming Benefits Native Americans. In Opposing View Points: Gambling. James D. Torr ed. Pp. 116-122. CA: Thomson Gale. • ECONorthwest • 1999 An Economic and Social Impact Study. A Report for the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, 1-40. Portland: ECONorthwest. • Hick, Carter W. • 2006 The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Why Tribes Can Build Casinos Off the Reservation. Gaming Law Review 10 (2) 110-123. • Kalugin, Marya and Tammy Bick • 2008 Confederated Tribes of Siletz History, tradition and Culture. Electronic document, http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/soc204/plazad/native2/marya/marya.htm, accessed March 2. • Kent, William Eugene • 1977 The Siletz Indian Reservation 1855-1900. Newport, Oregon: Lincoln County Historical Society. • Napoli, Maria • 2002 Native Wellness for the New Millennium: the Impact of Gaming. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 29 (1) 17-34. • National Indian Gaming Association • 2007 Indian Gaming Facts. Electronic document, http://www.indiangaming.org/library/indian-gaming-facts/index.shtml, accessed on March 2. • Pace, David • 2002 Indian Gaming Does Not Benefit Most Native Americans. . In Opposing View Points: Gambling. James D. Torr ed. Pp. 123-127. CA: Thomson Gale. • Palermo, Dave • 2007 Indian Gaming Benefits Tribes. In Opposing Viewpoints: Gambling. David Haugen and Susan Musser, eds. Pp. 47-53. MI: Thomson Gale. • U.S. Department of the Interior • 2003 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report. Report, i-24. Bureau of Indian Affairs: Office of Tribal Services.