The State was actually winning a lot, especially when the Chair of the FAB understood biology and simply didn't split the difference. We had a situation where a Tribe's fish staff requested WDF to put in a conservation closure because the Fish Committee (tribal political managers) wouldn't close a fishery. WDF almost did but the Tribe closed and promised not to do it again. Did the same thing next year.

The push for "Cooperative" or "Co" management came from above the agencies when the State realized that Boldt II (habitat) was where the big hammer was for business. If the state had to ensure dead fish in the boat then development/industry/business would be constrained. Couldn't have that. Mike Fraidenburg wrote a good paper on that process.

There was, I believe, a lot of fear on both sides off going to court. If the state won, on conservation grounds and then constrained the Indians, Boldt II would jump in big time I also believe that if the tribes lost that any hope of conservation was gone because, as you remember from the Culvert Case, the State argued before the Supremes that it was the State's right to blow away runs for the greater good.

My perhaps pessimistic view is that the State is gradually ceding anadromous fish and shellfish to the Tribes in trade for not having to fight another, and much larger, culvert-type case. The Leg now realizes that the foot-dragging they did on complying with the culvert case has come due very big time with need to spend billions by 2030 to comply with the Court Order.