Degradation of tribal-state relations in Maine – beyond gambling, of course – has less to do with money, and more to do about respect.

As a funding source, the state of Maine is a faint entry on tribal ledgers. Forestry, gaming and federal support provide the greatest revenue to tribes. The tribal-state relationship is, on the whole, sadly, solely political.

Which is what makes it so hard to repair. Politicians often rehearse refrains of embracing bipartisanship but, just as often, these idealistic across-the-aisle outreaches are withdrawn when the legislative road gets rough.

This happens in Maine. There is plenty of rhetoric about improving tribal-state relations, and almost as many ideas how to do it, but subsequent action has been non-existent.

Both the tribes and the state are to blame: tribes for not playing enough politics, the state for playing too much.

And until each side re-thinks its strategy for dealing with the other, nothing, it appears, will change.

For the state, this should mean a dose of honesty about sovereignty, and an appreciation for the documents that outline the tribal-state relationship: the Maine Indian Land Claims Settlement and Maine Implementation acts.

Though enacted almost three decades ago, these pieces of legislation were forged in perhaps the hottest political fire Maine’s seen. Altering their language or intent is a monumental occasion, and should be considered with the grave importance befitting such a landmark moment.

They should not be whipped into the waning weeks of a legislative short session, as a slate of recommended changes were this year. Not only did this provide little time for their thorough review, but it also gave the impression that they were being slid under the door.

Nor should the state pretend there’s abundant support for changes to the tribal legislation – there isn’t.

Many representatives and citizens think nothing should be changed regarding the tribes; a settlement is a settlement. This is an obstacle that cannot be ignored. It is perhaps the biggest obstacle to better tribal-state relations.

For tribes, a new strategy must abandon the fierce approach that now hurts its legislative efforts. Lawmaking is not a zero sum game, though tribal advocates sure played it that way. Refusal to compromise is not a recipe for progress.

Extracurricular saber-rattling from tribal leaders, proffering either harsh criticism for state government or veiled promises of legal action, are also unhelpful. A relationship will not be rebuilt if one side keeps tearing down the other.

Tribal-state relations are bad. Glossy state rhetoric has failed to improve it; so have unwavering tribal demands.

A better way, on each side, must be found.

Or this relationship, based on respect, will continue to suffer from a lack of it.