Thanks for the clarification.

My question is, could not the state immediately apply for a decision under the FOB, limiting the tribes from fishing until the board rules, then run that agreement back to the NOAA for a fast track since a binding agreement exists. From past readings it sounded like the FAB could be assembled and make a decision very fast.

This passage comes from the North American Journal of Fishery Advisory Board could not agree on a proposed regulation opening or closing any fishery, Indian or non-Indian, they should follow the recommendation of the chairman unless and until the matter was brought to court for a ruling. As a result of this order, the chairman, in addition to providing advice on technical matters, became responsible for applying Management, Summer of 1985, Volume 5, Number 3 B and lays out one way the FOB was supposed to work.

" In a similar order for 1978 and subsequent seasons (Memorandum Order and Preliminary Injunction re Salmon Allocation for 1978 and Subsequent Seasons, signed 11 August 1978 and later amended in several respects), the court further provided that whenever the two sides on the Fisheries the principles of the Boldt decision to daily disputes over fishery management--but subject to judicial review. "

The article earlier describes the FAB and its role better, but this section seems to apply to what is going on with NOF.

I am still not sure how long it would actually take a functioning FAB to make a decision, but it seems to have been the courts intention for it to be able to prevent issues like what we are having

The entire article can be found here. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/salmon/fishin..._management.pdf


The author's conclusion is well worth reading and is a one of the main reasons I keep going back to the FAB as the best, and perhaps only, answer.