Fishyologist,

You were the one that brought up within population variation being greater than within species variation. Clearly this is not possible. It may be inconvienient for your arguement, but the california O. mykiss are the same species as PNW steelhead. If your going to make statements about a whole species, you need to include all the groups of that species.

Also, there is a big difference between being able to establish genetic relatedness and having a handle on genetic diversity.
Sure, with steelhead we have a pretty good handle on which strains are related to which.
Do we have any real idea about genetic diveristy in steelhead? No, we do not.

The most intensively studied organism in terms of genetic diveristy is man. There have been thousands of microsatellite markers (DNA fingerprinting uses these), and millions of single nucleotide polymorphisms (some conding, more non-coding) identified in humans. We have sequenced the entire human genome. Yet we still lack anything approaching a complete understanding of genetic diversity, let alone how most of this variation contributes to disease (the reason we are so interested, scientifically speaking).

Now, you tell me that with a handfull of allozymer markers and a few hundered (maybe?) microsatellite markers you have enough knowledge to tell us that you understand the genetic diveristy of steelhead.
Get real.

The steelhead genome is about 80% the size of the human genome and proably about as polymorphic. To have comparable genomic data you'd need to have info on a million SNPs or more.

There is a big differnce between knowing groups are related and understanding genetic diversity and the consequences of changes in genetic diversity. We have a long was to go before we understand all of this.

BTW, you never answered my question about your support of the total hatchery/wild integration program the Bush camp advocates?

Is this a tough one for you to answer or are you just dodging the question?