In an article in POKER NEWS, Mark Macarro, the portly chairman of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians is quoted as being concerned about the casino income stream and not what internet gaming represents. Pechanga has been in the news lately, as there was a murder at the casino, just last week.
Mark Macarro, chairman of Pechanga, didn't seem as optimistic about how close the tribes are to an agreement or of the potential for Internet poker all together.
“The revenue stream that our brick and mortar casinos represent, it's hard to truly emphasize how key that is,” Macarro said. “All my remarks are prefaced by concerns about anything that can destabilize something that's working right now.
“Over the last handful of years, we've listened to a lot of experts, hired some experts, talked to many people and authorities far and wide, and we've concluded, given our circumstances as tribal governments, that Internet gaming is in fact a bigger threat than an opportunity. And frankly, if it were up to us, Internet gaming wouldn't be coming to fruition anytime soon.”
Macarro went on to explain that unless Congress prohibits Internet gaming, which he finds highly unlikely, there is no way to stop Internet gaming from coming to the state and that a California bill that respects tribal rights is the best way forward for tribal governments.
He isn't even concerned with the amount of money Internet poker could generate for his tribe. He specified that the amount of revenue that poker generates at Pechanga Resort and Casino in Temecula pales in comparison to casino games such as slot machines, roulette and craps. His main desire in a bill is an adequate framework to prohibit those games, as he thinks it's possible that the introduction of iPoker would soften opposition or public opinion on full iGaming over the next 5 to 10 years.
“Frankly, we don't think there's a lot of money to be made on iPoker in California,” Macarro said. “Our biggest fear is that iPoker is an entree for Internet gaming, such as New Jersey already decided.”
What should Californians do? Well, a good rule of thumb could be: If Pechanga is FOR it, we should be against it. Pechanga is well known to have terminated 25% of it's tribe, violating civil and human rights and practicing Apartheid on it's reservation. It has used TRIBAL TERRORISM to control it's remaining members. The tribe has been accused of Elder Abuse at Pechanga.