Boldt basically states the sides must negotiate and then leaves the option to bring disputes that can not be negotiated back to the court. The state just refuses to bring them back to the court. I believe it is possible that if the courts rule that the process must be open, they could also rule on that the tribes must allow it. Maybe I am wrong, but I believe the State could even pull the Tribes in as a party to the suit, so that a ruling could be made either way. I doubt they will, however, as both sides do not want the negotiations open. That said, the Tribe's could basically just not negotiate in good faith, leaving the state only with the option of agreeing, going to court or not doing any thing and punishing the non-tribal fishery. My guess is that they would claim there is nothing they can do and convince the State legislature to pass a rule basically exempting them from all the normal rules, making the court decision void. In between they would punish us by doing not suing and just allowing the non-tribal side to miss a year; or agreeing to whatever the Tribe wants and use it as a justification to going back to the way things were. The lie is in the fact that there is a path to solve this entire problem, but they refuse to take it.