The problem, as I see it, isn't whether we have "pure" stocks or not...but if they are producing naturally...if our rivers were capable of producing them naturally, they already would be. We don't need to plant fish where they don't exist, we already have fish in those rivers, and they are wild and naturally adapted stocks, and they can't manage it.

Not sure how planting more would all of a sudden make them capable of supporting more...they need the exact same habitat that the ones that are already there need...and if we made the changes required to allow the planted fish to "create" a run, well, the fish are there to do that already, without planting any.

The problem is, of course, that we don't want to do any of that...we don't want to fix habitat, we don't want to take out more dams, and we don't want to curtail harvest...we just want more fish to kill with all of those things...

...and if those fish aren't naturally producing, then the ESA won't let it happen.

I'll note for the third time in this thread...the ESA doesn't give twoshits about fishing, or fisheries...it only cares about naturally producing fish stocks, and whatever supporting tools we can use to get to that.

We can protect hatchery fish under the ESA if a rescue program is used to save or re-introduce a naturally producing run, but we can't substitute fish raised in a hatchery for fish naturally spawned and call it good.

The ESA would be satisfied with a 100 fish run that comes back every year, and would come down on a 100,000 fish run that comes back every year to a hatchery, while the natural spawners decline closer and closer to zero.

Change the ESA, or get the God Squad to write off the wild fish...but until then, this is the lowest of low hanging fruit for the NGOs to sue over.

Fish on...

Todd