I know I am harping on the same thing, but it seems that the state should be simply be reopening the Fishery advisory board. From my reading of the past court orders and decisions, this is the direction that must take place; unless someone can show me where this route was abolished legally, in the courts or otherwise.
My fear would be that the department takes the hard line, goes to court, only to have the courts tell them to go back and take the already established route! The fact that the state and Tribe agreed not to use the Board does not appear to have officially removed that path, only suspended it. I liken it to a child custody case where the parents can't agree and the courts set up a arbitrator for them to meet when things get tough. Both parties realize it sucks to go that way and start to work things out. Then six or seven years later the wife remarries and cuts off a visitation to the husband. Would he have to start from scratch, or simply go back to the original court, explain what was going on and ask for a new arbitrator to be established? I would guess that the courts would not want to readdress the issues at hand, since the underlying need for an agreement has been established, and simply direct the sides to take the established path. Co-management is the law, if one side refuses, a court order path to resolution has already been established.

If I am off, and I know I could be, please let me know. Thanks