It appears that the real issue is not with the fisherman, but with the buyers. The tribe prosecuted the fishermen because, while they might skip over the one day, they can not get around the fact that they were involved in multiple cases of poaching. My reading of this whole case is that the fishing was fairly easy to document, but who was buying them wasn't. The state got the warrant and followed the crab to prove who was buying them. Since this is not a tribal entity and the activity was not fishing, then the buyers do not have the ability force it in to tribal court. The tribe, then, found a way to claim that the one day in question was legal. The buyers then walk free. This smells of an organized, concerted effort to keep the state from getting justice, not on the fisherman, but on the buyers. With an active buyer, this activity will likely always continue. Hopefully the buyers' arrogance in chasing the state and the individual agents will back fire. The state might be able to roll over, which is what they likely will do, but unless they indemnify the agents, then this is likely to go to trial. My guess is that when the state settles, the case against the individuals will go away. What should happen is that the agents in question should immediately file a huge counter claim for libel and then start demanding discovery from the buyers and the tribe. That would make it interesting.