Some tribes are already in a bind when it comes to determining who is qualified to be a member. Their namesm (or the names of their ancestors) are on the Dawes Rolls. Even there they have problems with Indians marrying into the tribe and leaving descendants with less than 1/32 Cherokee (for example), even though they might be substantially more Indian than most Cherokees.
Pechanga was named by a white trapper/trader named (I believe) Jedediah Smith. The original Pechanga is actually located in Nikel Oblast in Russia. It's a river in the Sapma, or Sa'ami homeland ~ belonging, in general, to the Skolt tribe.
I still haven't figured out why Jedediah named the place. The Indians are mistreating the name and should be forced to quit using it.
Some tribes exist because of treaty obligations.
Others because of political expediency and only casual connections to tribes recognized due to treaty obligations.
There really isn't a consistent across the board approach when you get down to evaluating the smallest of tribes, which are typical in California.
There isn't even total consistency among the larger tribes (Navajo, Sioux, Cherokee), but you get much more of it.
The west coast tribes, in particular, suffered the fewest deprivations from the white man (with the possible exception of the Utes and Navajos, but that was more a function of their religious white neighbors) but are among the greatest beneficiaries in scooping up bennies which tribal recognition makes possible. That, and the large concentration of paleface neighbors to patronize their casinos and gas stations.