"For decades the state and tribes have reached agreement on how to share the catch in a manner
that has not required major judicial involvement. As a result, neither co-managers nor NOAA
Fisheries has modern judicial guidance on how to proceed in to day's environment when there is
not an agreement. Would the court review exploitation rates or be solely concerned with fixed
escapement goals? How would the court treat biological risk to ESA-listed populations? Would the
court look at the allocation of the management units analyzed by co-managers today, or would it
revert to the original allocation units the court used 30 years ago? It may be difficult in today's
environment to determine without co-manager consensus what the "harvestable surplus" is, and
what the treaty share is and, conversely, whether a proposed non-Indian fishery would impair the
treaty share. Under any circumstance, it is difficult to imagine a judicial review of a manager's
unilateral decision about such matters being resolved in a satisfactory manner if the co-managers
are disputing the underlying science and legal standards."

The saying "Too many cooks spoil the broth" comes to mind.
If this mess goes to court there should be no fishing by anyone until a final desicion is returned. Otherwise it will drag on for years and the salmon will be the biggest loser.
Even with that, I have zero confidence the court would arrive at a just desicion.
What is really needed is a single scientific entity with no ties to any user group that manages the resource to optimize the health of the stocks instead of focusing on MSY.
Dream on.