smalma: "there is ample evidence that there are substatnial populations of wild salmon"

If you have a link to the research that says; "here is a wild fish and this is how it differs from a hatchery fish" would you please direct me to it?

I am willing to be convinced. Several folk have sent me hither and thither through the federal register and various court cases and it's always turned out the same. No-one says that this is a "wild" fish.

What they do say is that hatchery and "wild" fish are known to frequent the same rivers at the same time for spawning and, in fact, do interbreed. Some court cases have determined that there is no difference.

Do you know what the heck Noaa is talking about here?:
"Recently the scientific name for the biological species that includes both steelhead and rainbow trout was changed from Salmo gairdneri to O. mykiss. This change reflects the premise that all trouts from western North America share a common lineage with Pacific salmon." From Fed. Reg

And what about these?
"“We conclude that even though naturally spawning hatchery steelhead may experience poor reproductive success, they and their juvenile progeny may be abundant enough to occupy substantial portions of spawning and rearing habitat to the detriment of wild fish populations.”
“However, it was apparent from both models that hatchery summer steelhead contributed at relatively high levels to natural production of smolts in both years.”
Again from the study provided:
“In the 2 years of our study, summer steelhead adults, mostly hatchery fish, made up 60% to 82% of the natural spawners in the river.”

It seems to me that there is just a bit of zealotry in trying to make a "wild" fish out of a fish. The "wild" fish is the Holy Grail that makes it impossible to have a proper fisheries program.