I'll be the first to admit I'm not an expert, but I thought it wasn't simply the mixing of genes that was the issue, but rather the mixing of a gene pool (the hatchery fish) that had been bred for success in a hatchery enviornment, with a gene pool that had evolved for successful growth in a wild environment. The theory was/is that the hatchery genes may conflict with the wild genes, yielding some young that will be less successful in the wild.

Hatchery fish have been selected both inadvertantly and intentionally, for traits such as success in growing in crowded conditions, returning at the same time each year, and not needing to know how to make a redd. These are the types of traits that seem like they would create problems if allowed to mix into wild gene pools.

Now, if you're transplanting wild fish between watersheds that have similar environmental characteristics, I don't see the same risk in that, as the fish should be successful, and not weaken any of the previously existing wild fish. In fact, I think you might see a strengthening of the breed over time. Animal breeders introduce lines from outside their current line all the time, to increase the vigor of the strain.

In fact, wild strains from adjacent rivers stray all the time, and have been mixing the gene pools for millenia, which is how the runs spread to begin with.

So I think Timberman's suggestion has some merit. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see the state pay my expenses for a hook and line recovery program, so that I can personally select the biters for mixing into other gene stocks. Can I get some support for a letter writing campaign to support this?