The crab situation seems ripe for a lawsuit similar, but in the opposite direction, of Hoh V. Baldridge. Prior to that decision, the NI's fished ahead of the Tribes in the ocean, fished on the forecast, and (deliberately) overfished by a small amount some smaller coho stocks commingled with much more abundant ones. Then, the tribes (in many cases the Hoh) would be totally closed or closed early for conservation because the harvest had been taken. Court held that this was not legal.

Boldt even had provisions that prevented the Tribes from corking the NI steelheaders who fished upstream of them. I think the Tribal argument was that the anglers couldn't catch their share so it was foregone opportunity. But, the anglers never even had the opportunity for them so Boldt allowed for allocation closures when the share was taken.

For this to work, we need good forecast numbers, Yeah, sure. But we also need catch reporting and harvest controls. If one side is consistently ahead of the other, they need to be cut back. This requires hands-on management, and huevos.