In reading about prior actions between the state and tribes, I keep seeing references to the fishery advisory board, which appears to have been set up as a result of the Boldt Decision. I think I remember some talk about it earlier, but I could not find any references to it via the search option. Does anyone know what happened to the board and why the state could not request it be revisited in regards to the tribes refusal to negotiate? Just because both sides agreed to move away from the board should not, in my opinion, preclude it from being an option of last resort when one side is not negotiating in good faith.

Reading the past decisions, it is striking how much of our present situation was brought up with the opposing sides switched.

The FABs were "given up" by Bill Wilkerson as part of the Spirit of Port Ludlow. Essentially, he agreed the tribes that we would just "talk out" issues. The FAB, when Boldt set it up, was a technical dispute settlement process. An FAB had the State, the particular tribe, and the court appointed Chair. At the meeting, the two sides would present their technical arguments and the Chair would give his opinion. The losing side could take it to Federal Court, but the Court-appointed Chair's opinion would carry significant weight.

The state, especially WDF, regularly prevailed. Wilk agreed with the tribes that we didn't need a confrontational process.

Given recent perceived failures to have a reasonably level playing field in negotiations with the tribes it may be time to resurrect that role/process. How might that play out in NOF? A change in the paradigm??

The big problem is who the Court appoints as Chair. Appoint a biologist (old style) and they will rule on the biology of the fish and which arguments-or middle ground-are most persuasive biologically.

Appoint a statistician and they will look at the models, statistics, and non-biological aspects; often splitting the difference because they knew numbers, not fish.

Also, in my experience the agency could sabotage the argument easily. Say the State point is 1 and Tribal is 100. If the FAB spilt the difference, you'd end up around 50. But of you knew that the Chair was going to split the difference, if you were directed to start the FAB at 50 the result would come down around 75.

Okay; legitimate (but not necessarily fatal) concerns. Alternative suggestions??

I agree that resolutions to impasses in a timely manner are needed since there is squabbling for the remaining salmon in our state terminal areas after the vast majority is intercepted in ocean waters in the name of U.S. commerce.

By not getting these salmon back to their Washington State natal waters to contribute to what once was considered a premier salmon fishing destination of the world, impacts will continue to take a toll on many various businesses and state tourism.

If my understanding of the board is correct, this would be the best way to go after the tribes and possible the only real way. The court laid out a plan (the board) that could be used when there were disputes. Both sides got along and decided not to use it the plan. Unless both sides agreed to abolish the board, and petitioned the court to abolish the board, the lack of usage of it does not (in my opinion) mean that the plan ceased to exist. It simply means that it was not needed. It seems to me that if the State did sue the tribes for not negotiating, the courts could easily tell the state that they have not exhausted all the legal means available to get a resolution and send them back to the original plan of the Advisory Board. I am assuming that no formal sitting board exists now, so wouldn't it be smartest for the State to ask the courts to re-establish it after the problems last year? I could be 100% wrong, but this seems to be the quickest and easiest solution. Even if the board comes back with allocations we don't like, isn't that better, in the short term, then being hostage to the tribes.

Pretty sure the FAB hasn't been abolished. The judge in charge would have to appoint a chair. It would be better because a written record was kept of each FAB. A draft, circulated to the parties for comment and final filed with the Court.

They make interesting reading. As Krijack says, at least the decision will be out there, in the open, for all to see.