Can't speak for eyeFISH or Salmo g., but for my part, you're correct in that I won't admit I'm wrong; not because I'm too proud, lazy, or stupid, but because I don't believe I am. The example of the Clackamas maybe compelling, but it's far from confirmation that the solution to our woes is to plant more hatchery steelhead everywhere.

I can cherry pick studies, too, but I don't think that's a very honest or productive way to review science holistically.

For the record, while I do believe hatchery introgression is generally detrimental to wild stocks, mostly due to our understanding that hatchery steelhead are horribly inept wild spawners, I don't believe it's anywhere near the threat groups like WFC make it out to be. I'm no fan of WFC and their bent on closing fisheries, so on that, I think we can agree. I also enjoy a chunk of hatchery steelhead on my plate from time to time, so I'm no wholesale hater of hatchery fish. Seems we could agree on that, too.

Thing for me is, even if there are examples like the Clackamas where mixing hatchery and wild fish hasn't led to meaningful introgression, we know introgression is a negative stress on wild gene pools in general, so we ought to try and prevent it.

So where do we go from here? There seem to be only two schools of thought: Quit producing hatchery steelhead and close fisheries, or plant the hell out of every flowing stream with hatchery smolts and let's all go fishin.' I personally don't think either of those is a reasonable approach. I feel like we need to identify 1-2 streams in each WDFW region in which no viable runs of wild steelhead exist, plant the holy heck out of them, and manage them for hatchery production and harvest fisheries. That keeps more people fishing and (occasionally) catching our state fish, and that's the outcome I would most like to see.

Is my idea realistic, possible, and sustainable? Probably not, no matter how much I wish it were. See my point?