The state can apply for their own permit but it has a lot of potential downsides attached in addition to the time lag between submittance and approval. The time line is layed out in the permit process for the state fishing plan. There are required analysis, review, comment period etc that drags this out that is not the same for the tribal permit. NOAA/NMFS can't just expedite things because the state wants to fish. Not following the rules would immediately mean lawsuit by somebody. That said a state permit would probably have less uncertainty about an upcoming season structure as this would be outlined in the plan which is good. However, its probably unrealistic to think that these seasons would be less restrictive than what has happened in recent years. Its more likely that they would even be more restrictive. NOAA/NMFS in evaluating the state plan would do so with on eye recovery of ESA species (Chinook, SRKW etc) and on the assurance of protecting treaty fishing rights. IE if the state fishes with these seasons is recovery of ESA jeopardized or is treaty fishing rights at risk? There are established values for acceptable ERs, escapements etc that if followed are allowed for ESA recovery. However, treaty fishing rights are not well defined anywhere. Hence, the uncertainty means that the edge is towards more treaty fishing not less than what has occurred recently. Consequently, these issues take priority over state fishing. NOAA/NMFS is not going to be a referee of 50:50 splits. After all, the states and the tribes have presented joint plans that were approved that aren't 50:50. NOAA/NMFS is definitely not going to swing things towards this in their analysis/approval as they have no obligation to do so and it is precedent that it hasn't been 50:50 anyway. In their evaluation of separate state and tribal plans, they will give the "ties" in uncertainty towards the tribes. So a state plan that gets approval may not be as wonderful as some hoped. IMO. Flame on.