Geoduck, smalma, et al,
Firstly, you ask if you are just being dense regarding the issues of inter- and intra-population genetic vaiation. You are. That's why I posted the actual references that would help you understand the concept.
As for chromosome numbers, your posts clearly summarize the issue (you forget that I helped count these!!). The fish with 61-64 chromosomes are RESIDENT fish from SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and anadromous fish from the Gualala and Mad River systems (two rivers even more notorious for using hatchery stocks derived from anywhere, especially mid-CAL). There is little variation in number in the NW, and where there is it's because of migration. You guys are the ones that brought up the 2n numbers as an argument that these fish are so diverse, and I'm simply pointing out that the actual data doesn't support your argument.
--Bushbear: AMEN. Basin-wide management makes sense from phenotypic, genotypic, and common sense approaches. Enough of this splitting hairs.
Back to Geoduck. A test on only one or two rivers? I could pick two sets of rivers, where each approach would have very different results. As our discussion is leading us, you can't simply apply one approach to all systems.
The Glacial shield issue you bring up is indeed interesting. The glacial mass actually was thought to have separated the steelhead populations into two distinct groups. This is supported by all the evidence that we currently have discussed (genetic markers, chromosomes, etc). There are two major populations: an inland group comprising both anadromous and non-anadromous populations of the Columbia River east of the Cascade Crest and a coastal group extending from Alaska to California.
Lastly, as for the pink results you remark on, it is amazing isn't it? How does this happen, you ask? Migration, my friend, migration. The inherent, incessant trend of all anadromous salmonid stocks to stray from their natal streams in an effort to recolonize and or allow gene flow. So much for the genetic population stability/purity issue.