This is exhausting, but I'll try it once again (likely not the last time, however).

Very simple question.

Why are we not introducing Broodstock FRY back into our streams?
Did I not read that the report says that the hatch rate is 20 to 30 times higher than when naturally spawned?
The only response I have gotten previously was that fry do not do well upon release.
OK, but we would have 20 to 30 times as many fish to introduce. Seems to me like the release could be screwed up and still be far ahead of natural spawn. Plus, I suspect that there has not been much effort put into finding out HOW to introduce fry with a low mortality rate. I have no idea WHY the State wouldn't want to find out a good way to release the tiny fellas.
It appears that everything is geared for smolt stage transfers......and to me that methodology doesn't seem to work very well with it's hatcherized offspring. Fry do not seem to exhibit the same characteristics as the long held smolt, and it seems logical that they would more likely develop survival methods similar to naturally spawned fry.
Fry would have the advantage of not being crippled by long term exposure to the unchanging, nonthreatening environment of hatcheries. There would be no need to clip them, as they would be truly WILD fish, only hatched by man.
Not long ago I was wrangled into a long weekend in Leavenworth, and during my stay, visited the Chinook hatchery there. The salmon fry would "spook" as I walked by the raceways. Seems like a healthy survival instinct at that stage. Quite different from what I have observed at numerous hatcheries, once the fry reach par and then smolt stage. They swim up to passersby as a potential benefactor of food supply.

I really, really think we are missing the boat here, guys. Ok, I'm done......again.