That is definitely not true. Federal recognition brings a host of abilities for a people to organize including the ability to form a government and other institutions.
It's a shame that there's no form of recognition that doesn't involve casino rights.
In fact, there is no official "casino rights" recognition to seek, it's just an often unwanted right that comes along with federal tribal recognition.
So many tribes, who want other educational and or commercial benefits that come with federal recognition (like being able to label their art/crafts "Indian-made"), or who simply want the recognition due to them for reasons of ethnic pride, have to face opposition from big casino corporations worried that some tribal leader in the future might propose a casino.
There should be a form of federal recognition by BIA that doesn't involve casino rights, that's the easiest solution (although unlikely to happen for legal reasons).
Technically there are some states that refuse to sign compacts with the tribes. It's a myth its automatic. Further, some states (e.g. North Dakota) do not allow direct payment to tribal members and require the money go to social service programs.
I am getting a bit sick of all the FUD in this area.
What? FUD? There are a few state exceptions (as there are to just about any US intersection of state and federal law) to what I wrote and you call it FUD?
The fact is, for those states that do give federally-recognized tribes casino rights (ie, most of them), there is not way for a tribe to forfeit that right.
How in the world is that a "myth" or "FUD"? Look, I can understand why you got irritated at the other statement above (of course federal recognition brings benefits other than casino rights!), but I have no idea what you would call this fact a "myth".
If you're pointing out that this would have to come from the states, and not the federal government, then it's a good point (that's what I was referring to my "legal reasons"). But why call this "FUD"?
