This group appears to be good at confusing issues! First of all, I thought that we were talking about whether or not to utilize hatcheries to aid in restoration of wild populations once habitat and run size were impacted. Suddenly, the color of my heart is in question because I disagree with "wild in right".

Smalma, I've really got to question your survival numbers! Typical wild coho returns to coastal streams of late have been estimated to be 0.25% That's one quarter of 1%! So your numbers suggest that if we lose 99% as egg to first winter, and another 70% of the remainder to leaving the estuary, then ocean survival must be 100%. Doesn't add up to me. The ocean environment has been much more selective than you suggest, I'd be glad to send you refs.

Please cite your studies that demonstrate the first generation poor performance. I can likely name the authors before you post. The point is, IMO, there is science being published on both sides of this issue that is not unbiased. The wild fish guys are setting out to "prove" that hatcheries are bad, and the hatchery proponents are setting out to show that hatchery fish are not bad. There is little objective science in this arena that begins with a null hypothesis, designs experiments to give neither group an advantage, and objec tively measures the results. If you believe there are, I'd love to read them.

Whoever posted here that Lamark wasn't right after all; this "wild fish vs. hatchery fish" topic seems to be the opportunity for Lamarkian evolutionists to make thir come-back from the 1600's.

As for being attacked for thinking differently, I wish I had godzillions of $$. I'd be leaving these issues to you guys, sitting on a boat in a tropical sea, casting live sardinas to boiling yellowfins and having my crew of Amazonian beauties feed me guava. But I digress...........