Slab Happy,

Re: "until the state stopped us."

WDFW doesn't benefit by stopping programs that yield positive results. The state hatchery system (and the feds before them) planted millions and millions of salmon and steelhead fry. Most of those were unfed fry, and we have known for years that the results of those efforts were not statistically significantly different from ZERO. Stocking fed coho fry has shown a degree of production, however, as far as I know, no one has monitored the fry to smolt survival rate anywhere, as has been done with steelhead like I mentioned in my above post. WDFW can generate coho smolt production from fed fry plants in waters that were significantly under-seeded by natural spawners. The best example I know of for this is the Chehalis system, where deliberate over-fishing of coho has been a part of harvest management for decades, as described in the Chehalis thread by Rvrguy. The method can work, to a degree, but as far as I'm aware, we lack good data documenting the resulting production from the practice. And when the state does it, the coho fry plants are usually a small truck load dumped all in one spot, which we know from our steelhead experience is totally bass akwards because it's not how fry are distributed by natural spawning.

If fry plants were truly such a good deal, all those hatchery workers collecting their paychecks could stock 100 times as many fish if they didn't have to bother raising them for a year.

As for your dog turds to donuts bet, I'd love to take you up on it. What fish species are you referring to? I hope you like dog turds. If the state had the money for such a test, I can come up with a half dozen biologists by lunch time that would be all over that one, and not just to see you eat dog turds. As for why not, money is harder to get for research than for hatchery operations. It's always been that way and continues to be so.

Sg