The authors of this reply argue that ongoing criticism of existing theories, the development of alternative theories, and empirical theory tests offer the best chance for advancing American Indian research. The authors therefore note their appreciation for the comments of J. Beals et al. The authors nevertheless disagree with many of the specific claims of Beals et al., noting that in their original article, (a) the characterization of the existing literature on reservation-dwelling American Indian drinking was accurate; (b) no argument made by Beals et al. undermines their theoretical contention that there is a relative lack of contingency between access to basic life reinforcers and sobriety on many reservations; (c) the theory was developed in a responsible manner, specifically by a reservation-tied American Indian, and was reviewed by a reservation leadership team, a cultural consultant, and reviewers for this journal, at least one of whom consulted leaders of other reservations; and (d) the theory was based on previous interdisciplinary theory development. The authors encourage the development and testing of new, alternative theories.