Wisconsin Indians are at the foot of the socio-economic strata. Indians, comprise only 0.5% of the entire population of the U.S. they being the smallest minority in the U.S, are still at the bottom of practically every economic disparity. As a means to alleviate their poverty, gaming came as a development and a consequence of sovereignty of Wisconsin Indians, acknowledged by the courts after decades of Indian activism and frequent episodes of robbery and genocides. The native nations were finally able to set their own rules and regulations to regulate their tribal members. Tribal casino success stems from this ability to captivate a non-Indian entertainment desire in areas where states prohibit it.

According to the statistics on Economic Impact Of Indian Gaming “Indian gaming has become the industry that tribal governments can use to overturn 150 years of federal neglect. As of February, 1997, the National Indian Gaming Commission reported there were 115 tribes with gaming class III operations and 164 tribe/state compacts in 24 states. Less than one-third of the tribes in the U.S. have gaming operations. Indian Gaming is only 5% of the entire Gaming Industry. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) mandates tribal governments, not individuals, can have gaming operations. Thus the entire proceeds of the industry go back to fund tribal government programs, just as state revenue funds state programs. States use lottery proceeds much the same way tribes use gaming proceeds. Indian gaming is providing a means to self-sufficiency for Tribal Nations, and is also creating jobs and economic activity in local non-Indian communities and states where tribal gaming operations are located. Over 120,000 direct jobs and 160,000 indirect jobs have been created nationwide. Gaming holds some hope for reducing poverty, but it is definitely not a treat as the limited and perhaps transitory success of gaming cannot quickly render null and void centuries of botched economics.
Indian casinos are present in large numbers and many are not even listed. According to the statistics, “Indian gaming represents only about 5% of all gambling in the United States and only a third of tribes currently operate gaming facilities. About 40% of gambling revenues come from state lotteries and the remaining 55% is dominated by commercial entities in Nevada and New Jersey” (Lawrence, 1995). These gaming zones offer jobs for tribal members, food and shelter for on-reservation members and a buy-back of bigger land bases. Wisconsin tribes operate 15 Class III gaming facilities with a total payroll of just over $68 million. For some 3,000 employees, their casino job is the family's sole source of income. If those same employees were placed on state unemployment compensation, it would cost the state more than $27 million. Procurement by tribal gaming employees of daily items support more than 900 indirect jobs, created by the increased sales that local businesses are surviving upon. 17 percent of the population that visits the casinos comes from out of state and an additional 53 percent come from outside the immediate casino area. This also leads to greater than before tourism generating nearly $18 million dollars in state income taxes per year along with a drop in welfare costs.

While some tribes have earned millions, others remain mired in poverty. The problems of the Indian reservations include a 24% poverty rate, a suicide rate more than twice that of all other nonwhites, and the highest high school dropout rate among all non-whites. Many Indians live on remote lands with no resources. The federal government has reduced economic assistance by two-thirds over the last 15 years. Unemployment still averages 45%. In the late 1980s, an impermanent spate of Indian triumphs has left some astringent trace. While some acknowledged tribes won the power to run high-stakes gambling, others are still rolling snake eyes. As a consequence, is a minority became fabulously well heeled, and some financial paybacks began to get accumulate to impoverished reservations. But bitterness got augmented amongst the acknowledged and un-acknowledged tribes (Economic Impacts of Wisconsin…, 1993). In relation to the sovereignty of the native nation, it is generally thought that the reason for their ongoing progress is harmony and unity. It is the unity of reason, unity of perseverance, unity of endeavor and firmness. In retrospect, as one try to turn back the pages of time, one may comprehend that all foremost accomplishments of Wisconsin Indians were brought about unanimously. The major conquest, that the Indian people take pleasure in at this theatre of war, was the result of a incorporated effort among Indian people (Cozzetto, 1995).
Tribal sovereignty is to be sheltered for the present and for the coming future to bring with it a continuing character for the protection of Indian affairs. Tribal governments and tribal members may participate in negotiations regarding policy making in an effort to protect tribal sovereignty. With each challenge posed toward individual tribes, measures for protecting sovereignty of the tribal members should be formulated and a united front line supported. This united front would not only commandeer the individual privileges of tribes as mentioned or specified in their agreement, but would on the contrary uphold the basic legal constructs of tribal sovereignty (Magnuson, 1994).
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) requires states to reach a deal with tribes seeking gaming compacts. It is a legal agreement that summarizes the gaming operation, including the kind of games offered, the magnitude of the service, betting limits, regulation, security, etc. While a numerous states have negotiated with tribes and are now munching their way through the economic benefits of Indian gaming, other states have refused to negotiate, thus violating federal law and ignoring the jurisdiction of the federal courts. In this case, if states refuse to negotiate, tribes can demand the appointment of a mediator from the federal court. If the mediator then fails to bring both sides together within a certain time frame, the mediator chooses the last best offer of either the tribe or the state (Magnuson, 1994). It is a general consensus that that states should have no input whatsoever in decisions pertaining to tribal facilities. On the contrary, it is generally proclaimed that the process is racist and shields the state's own sweepstake arrangements or monopoly.