There no doubt are some hatchery programs that are maintaining a genetic bank for fish that would surely have gone extinct by now, or would be going extinct very soon. The Hood Canal Summer Chums and Mid- Upper- Columbia Summer Runs, and Upper-Columbia Springers and Sockeye are a few that come to mind.

Those runs, however, were (and for the most part, are still) way beyond any other help whatsoever.

No habitat fixes in the world are going to matter when multiple dams eat up 99% of outgoing smolts, and kill or severely hamper a large percentage of adults. For those Upper Columbia fish, there is no other choice.

There also is no directed fishery for any of those fish. The brilliance of netting loads of them up in the Lower Columbia "Tangle Net" fishery (aka, catch and release from a gillnet) is already killing way too many of those fish.

Salmo's point about the Stilly chinook is very well taken...that watershed has lost almost all of its lower river backwaters, historically created by beaver dams, which is where all the wild chinook rear. Without those areas, they're doomed.

Other rivers, however, aren't quite as bad off. I'd say that Skykomish chinook have pretty good habitat, at least for spawning. A high intensity hatchery program would without a doubt hurt the fish that are there, through all types of competition through all life stages.

Those fish don't need a genetic bank housed in a hatchery...they have one existing within themselves already.

I guess I'd have to say, IMHO, that hatchery programs are without a doubt detrimental to wild runs that do not need artificial supplementation. There comes a point, however, when the wild runs are in such a state as to be aided by hatchery fish.

Those fish can't be out of basin fish, first off, and hatchery practices should be tweaked in order to create a product that is less likely to have adverse affects on the wild fish.

Lastly, without pointing any fingers, since I can't read minds, only typed messages, I'd encourage everyone to honestly discuss with themselves why they hold a particular stance on hatcheries and hatchery fish.

If you say you don't think hatcheries hurt wild fish, or that they are necessary for ESA recovery, make sure you don't mean "hatcheries provide me with a better fishery" in your mind.

I think it's a perfectly valid perspective to not care where a fish came from, so long as you get to catch a lot, and eat some if you want. Just don't cloak that opinion in statements opining that hatcheries aren't bad for wild fish.

It's also a perfectly valid perspective to think that all hatcheries are bad, for all wild fish. Just don't expect to fish much for salmon or steelhead until the wild runs rebound to a fishable level.

I think my perspective is valid also...I value wild fish over hatchery fish. I value fishing over not fishing, and I also value a chance to catch something when I do fish over a much lesser chance to do so.

For me, that shakes out to; 1. Support the protection of wild runs that do exist. 2. Fish selectively where hatchery runs and wild runs that can handle the incidental catch are coexistent. 3. Support hatchery programs that are at least minimally adverse to wild fish, and preferably benign (if those exist?)

I catch a lot of hatchery fish with eggs from other hatchery fish, and I eat a lot of hatchery fish, and so do all my non-fishing friends.

I also catch a lot of wild fish, and I have lots of good pictures of them, and lots of hope that I can catch and release their progeny a few years down the line.

Fish on...

Todd.