I guess I don't understand the entire dynamic behind the process. How is it that. One unique sector of the co-managers can throw a trump card at the last minute? What is the point of negotiating if the end all be all is a stern and foreboding "sorry, no".

The "low snowpack, warm summer" argument is based on speculation. WDFWs models are based on science.

If the mucks said "no" why wouldnt the state then also say "no" and not agree to their terms. Both user groups need permits to operate, and if the argument is over conservation then NO ONE fishes. Force a stalemate, no permits should be issued until terms are met for BOTH groups....

This sets dangerous precedent if this policy goes unchanged..... What's to stop the tribes from just saying "no" to each and every last NOF proposal knowing now that crying like a baby and stomping their feet will get them their way.

It seems to me the process is beyond broken. I think it may be time for some Supreme Court inquisition into this "process".....