Like you, I too keep beating a dead horse. Everytime you hear the state claim they can do nothing, it is a lie. Boldt is an open court case and has provisions for when the tribes and states do not agree. The problem is, the state refuses to utilize these provisions and simply agrees to what the Tribes ask for.

Take for example the recent Puyallup Tribal crabbing. While this is under a different court case, the principal is the same. Many of you feel the State can do nothing. Well, take a look at what the manager for the area stated in a reply to my email. (In the past, I did not share some of my emails out of respect for responder. Most of them are simply working in the parameters allowed and should not be taking the blame for what is going on, However, when the state got sued recently, they went in the archives and released a large number of my emails that I was holding back to be kind, so in return, I am now sharing mine when appropriate.)



XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Hi ....
I appreciate you reaching out. We have been in preseason discussions with the Puyallup tribe but are currently not in agreement on this fishery plan for 2020. We are in the middle of developing our response to the recent regulation, so unfortunately I cannot comment fully on response at this time. However, to speak to some of your other questions, test fishing numbers do indicate crab abundances have improved in marine area 11, potentially allowing for some harvest opportunity for both the state and the tribes. As you know, marine area 11 has been closed for 2 years, so while the improved test fishing numbers are encouraging, we want to take a cautious approach this year. The harvest quota and corresponding season in this area still remains to be finalized.

In shellfish fisheries, there is a separate court decision referred to as the Refeedie decision. While there are many principles shared between the Boldt and Rafeedie decisions like an equal sharing principle, the legal framework surrounding times when the state and tribes disagree on fisheries is different. The current regulation from the Puyallup tribes as you said, is a regulation to go fishing without a comanager agreement. The state (or tribes if the tables were turned) then has the opportunity to challenge that regulation on grounds that the regulation contradicts key provisions of what’s called the Shellfish implementation plan. For example, IF we believed that this fishery would do undue harm to the resource, we could object on conservation grounds. This rarely happens as issues are often resolved prior to this point but it remains an option.

If you wouldn’t mind and are still interested in getting a final answer to the questions you posed that are outstanding, please feel free to send a follow up email in a few weeks. I should have much more solid information to pass onto you at that time.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Note the that they agree that they could object, but this rarely happens as the issues are resolved. I would go on to state that they never protest. If they do, it must be in situations that are so outrageous or, more likely, in which other tribes protest and the state steps in. I have no faith in them actually objecting. To be blunt, they are scared to do so, as they are convinced the Tribes will fight and try to bring up other issues, such as development and such. Whether the scale has tipped enough to warrant that risk is something I think most of us disagree with the State on. I also disagree with the level of risk, but given the way the department is run

If I am viewing this wrong, please let me know. So far I have not seen anything to make me believe I am. Simply put, there is no need for anything other than the State to utilize the resources already available. They just don's.