In Oliphant, the Court found that Indian tribes or nations did not have the inherent sovereign power to assume criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians committing crimes on Indian reservations. A review of the literature and case law, however, demonstrates that this decision was political and without legal basis. Site visits to 12 reservations and a mail survey of tribal officers revealed that Oliphant created a serious gap in the enforcement and prosecution of non-Indian crimes on the reservation. Non-Indian crimes on reservations without law enforcement response increased, tribal police officers' morale deteriorated, and revenues from fines and Government subsidies declined. Some tribes have coped with these problems by entering into mutual aid pacts and cross-deputization agreements with the Federal, State, or local governments. Others have recodified certain criminal offenses as civil infractions to retain jurisdiction, or have claimed treaty rights to detain and deliver non-Indian offenders to the United States for prosecution. These solutions are temporary, and the Congress must rectify the situation by recognizing tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian crimes. Local remedies which can provide temporary relief include tribal-State compacts and the creation of tribal-State commissions on non-Indian criminal jurisdiction to regulate these agreements and protect the tribes from unilateral State action regarding enforcement in Indian country. Site vist and survey questionnaires, a list of sites visited, and model cross-deputization and mutual aid agreements are supplied.