Agree that past, current and likely continuation of habitat degradation will prevent recovery of wild stock (whatever its definition). And especially to numbers sufficient to meet harvest demands.

This whole complex issue of ESA listings and related recovery efforts is muddled with seemingly mixed understandings (or misunderstandings) of terms and goals.

Is the goal to protect and recover existing pure genetic stocks? Or is it to protect naturally spawning stocks (no matter their relationship to the original genetics of individual river systems)?

My initial understanding was that it was to recover those remnant pure genetic stocks. Then came information that in reality the goal is to allow current stocks (with genetics likely altered by years of out of basin plantings) to evolve over time. That is particularly true with Puget Sound Chinook.

With my current understanding (right or wrong) I am leaning toward accepting a reality that the "wild fish" goal is vague at best and that hatchery production is the only way to generate anywhere near the number of fish (particularly P.S. Chinook) required to satisfy all of the requirements for those fish; human and other.

Pragmatic or caving in??