The way the FAB worked was when there was a dispute, the two parties met in from of the Chair and presented their sides. The Chair ruled, at least initially best on the best science and law as Boldt outlined.

The parties had two choices. Accept the decision and file whatever regulations came from that or go directly to Court where the Chair (appointed by the Court as the Court's expert) would tell the Judge what the best science was in this case. The expectation was that the Judge would agree and then order compliance.

Decisions were often rendered at the end of the meeting. Recall that the FAB was primarily used in-season so a decision had to be made.

The first few Chairmen were pretty good scientists.

The Fisheries Advisory Board (FAB) worked pretty well in my experience too. I always liked Prof. Richard Whitney.

I thought it worked well, too. I dealt mostly with Fred Olney. It wasn't always for disagreements; we also used it to change agreed-to management. Just to formalize the action.

So, this begs the questions:

What needs to happen to get the FAB back, and who's gonna get the ball rolling?

One side or the other needs to request one. Has to be WDFW or one of the Tribe's with whom there is a disagreement over a fishery. Since one or the other has to call one, I doubt it will happen as the Centennial Accords and other agreements put it on the shelf.

So, it's not a viable option then?

There's no reason to believe it will be revived. The Tribes would rather things go to tribal court and WDFW will not do anything that might "upset" the tribes. It's a co-dependancy relationship where the tribes dictate and the department complies. As long as NO MAJOR influence steps in, things will continue in perpetuation, only getting worse until the Sportsmen are no longer able to fish for salmon, and the commercials, both Tribal and Non-tribal will wipe out the stock to extinction. Dismal looking future...

There is no reason that disputes would go to Tribal Court as they don't have authority over the State. That is why the disputes go to Federal Court as they have authority over all parties involved.

The Sportsman's only hole card is the license. Buy it, support WDFW.

From how I understand things, IF the state files against the Tribes, the tribes have an option to take the case to Tribal court or Federal. If the Tribes file against the State, it goes to Federal.

That's why the Tribes just keep not complying, they just wait out the State... Point no Point and Skokomish River come to mind.

I may be wrong. If there are any experts, please chime in.

I can't see how they can go to tribal court as it has no jurisdiction over the State. If it did, then the State would be subservient to the Tribe. Co-Management assumes equality. If the State has to be subject to Tribal Court they aren't Co-Managers but just stakeholders reliant on the Tribes' good will.

If memory serves, the option of going to Tribal Court was for the State to give up prosecuting Tribal members who violated both State and Tribal rules. Which os why, for example, they handled the crab poaching prosecutions.

The centennial accord has a disclosure at the end that seems to leave the option of going back to the FAB possible.
"Each of the parties respects the sovereignty of each other party. In executing this Accord, no party waives any rights, including treaty rights, immunities, including sovereign immunities, or jurisdiction. Neither does this Accord diminish any rights or protections afforded other Indian persons or entities under state or federal law. Through this Accord parties strengthen their collective ability to successfully resolve issues of mutual concern.
While the relationship described by this Accord provides increased ability to solve problems, it likely will not result in a resolution of all issues. Therefore, inherent in their relationship is the right of each of the parties to elevate an issue of importance to any decision-making authority of another party, including, where appropriate, that party's executive office."

I believe we just need to call the states bluff when they say there is nothing they can do and point out that they are lying and are just opting not to do anything.

The State has many reasons for not challenging the Tribes. The cynical would would say multi-millions. We continue to look at imbalances in fishing issues and that is probably small potatoes in the statewide scheme. Somehow, we need to find out why the State ( and this us above WDFW) is doing what it is doing.

And once it is known why, then what?

It's possible that the reasons driving the State's actions are in the best interest of all the citizens of WA. If we knew them. Or, they may favor one sector and if know, elections can change the players. I was taught that Knowledge is power.

Looking at the current political landscape I am not sure that is true, but I still believe it.

I think what is happening may be a combination of ignorance and the political wrangling Carcassman is talking about. It seems most of the time the State will tell us that the only option there is for them is to go back to court and sue the tribes. That does not appear to be the truth, but it is likely what the people we are talking to believe and have been told by those in charge. They are not paid to dig into the politics, just to do as directed. So when we make a call or ask a question about the path they are taking they will simply parrot back what they are being told and, likely what they believe. Breaking through the chain of command and demanding the full truth is what needs to happen. For years part of my job involved getting permits and wading through regulations and county agencies. I probably pissed off quite a few people, but I never stop asking why until I get an answer. At one point I had a representative start yelling and screaming at me. I knew nothing and the regulation in place was never changing. I ended up going to a county council member, who then called in a manager and asked him about why the regulation was the way it was. At that point it became clear that they simply had made their calculations the easiest way possible and really didn't care that they were grossly unfair or unrepresentative of what was happening in the field. I never will forget the look on his face when my council member stated, "So basically, you are just screwing people because it's easiest." There was silence, she looked up and said, "Get me something in a week or I will get the council to do it ourselves." It saved me about $20-$30 thousand at that time and complete changed the fee structure they were charging, probably costing the department millions. Twenty years later it I don't think anyone there could even envision them doing the calculations the way they were. But, I am not sure if I had not stood up to their bullying that it ever would have changed. Most of the people I know were afraid of rocking the boat and that they would never get another permit if they pushed it issue. Be polite, but never stop asking why until you get the right answer. Most of the times there is a good answer, but it has to be dug out as no one down low knows why, nor do they care. Once you break through, most of those on the top know the issue and will work with you. Pushing those who don't know understand will only get you enemies.

It's not just "wrangling". The business community was/is worried that Tribal push on Bildt II for habitat will kill business, especially big business like Boeing, Weyco, and the like. The habitat hammer is a big one. Got to build bigger hangers to build those big planes and there is a huge environmental impact. If the Tribes, or a Tribe, could stop it dead that would be bad for business. Look at how they have been able to work the various port/fuel loading issues.

I agree with Krijack about how siloed and kept in the dark many staff are. Many a time I knew and agency policy that was totally unknown to the folks I was dealing with. Had to educate them.

In the case of WDFW, it's the Senior leadership who is giving out half truths and are failing to do everything to work towards a real solution. Senior Leadership!! Not staff. These are the guys who are paid BIG MONEY to know, and to fix things when they are brought to their attention.

For example, they tell us repeatedly that "There is nothing else they can do other than ask the tribes for cooperation in opening up the NOF meetings. They say, the Tribes are sovereign and do not have to obey the state Open Public Meetings Law. What the DON'T TELL US, is that if the Commission truly believes what they have been saying, about Transparency being so important and vital, all they have to do is ADD a few words into the North of Falcon policy when they vote to adopt it and WALLA! Transparency is now MANDATED by law! Of course, the tribes can now choose to attend or not, but the meetings must, by law have public oversight!

So, why didn't they do that last year when we asked? Why did they bring in the lawyer to give a presentation on how they can get around it?

Because, they are AFRAID of the TRIBES!!! Plain and simple!

They've known about the piggy backed permit problem for a long time. They've know that it was being used to get concessions that in a fair system would not happen.
They knew that IF the public found out about what is REALLY going on, all HELL would break loose.
So, they did nothing, and still say there is nothing more they can do but ask the Tribes permission.... That is the Ugly Truth!

I think some of the tribes are just as scared about Boldt II as the state is. There is that pesky clause Boldt added in about a moderate income. There is no way the tribes would be willing to disclose how much they make or where the money is going to. A quick glance, however, would indicate that many members have more than adequate means to get a moderate income by means other than just fishing. In addition, the tribes have benefited greatly from most of the same development that they would be fighting. Strip malls, a sea port, large timber tracts, hotels, casinos, etc. It is very possible that a reopening of Boldt would determine the tribes can easily make a moderate income from other investments and from other fisheries beside salmon and Steelhead, such as crabs, clams, sea cucumbers, gooey ducs and that the income from these new fisheries is well beyond the original income that they could have imagined from the fisheries taking place at the time of the treaty. Not all tribes have these options, but the ones that do are those that are making the most trouble. A guaranteed fishery that meets subsistence and cerimonial purposes could be all they truely are guaranteed

The thing in Boldt (Supremes review) tied the fish share to a moderate living. They were entitled to 50% or a moderate living from fishing, whichever was smaller. The Commercials begged WDF to litigate moderate living in the 80s and the state wouldn't. Some would argue, then, that the harvest taken in the 80s did not meet the moderate living level.

I think we keep missing the idea that it is the State, not WDFW leadership, that is driving the bus. The whole state has too much to lose, so they believe, to challenge the Tribes.

Was the "moderate living" language really tied solely to fishing income? It has been my recollection that as their general economic status increased that the tribal fishing share could be reduced.

I believe the specific language was that the Share was 50% or a moderate living, whichever is less.

The other aspect to remember is that their share includes C&S. Note that as the number of tribal members increases the subsistence need goes up, too. It is also recognized that conversion to a northern European diet has led to diabetes and other diseases so they probably physiologically need to eat fish.