I'm only home for a short time.....lunch.....and no, not dog turds.

Sg, rather extensive answer covering most all of the points that I would consider important...thanks. I was referring to steelhead, of course.....are there other fish? (kidding)

While I know it is impossible to construct and implement a test with the exact parameters that I outlined in my turd/donut bet, I find it very difficult to believe that fish can produce at a higher success rate than a controlled environment devoid of the dangers of natural spawn. It doesn't even make sense to me. Otherwise, why would anyone have created hatcheries in the first place? If wild fish could have kept up with harvest, then we wouldn't be where we are today, right? And back when hatcheries began, there were far more fish in the rivers already. Those fish had much better environment and less harvest pressure. The harvest quantities far exceeded those of today, I'm sure, but there was far more escapement as well.

You say that "WDFW doesn't benefit by stopping programs that yield positive results." And you follow with "deliberate over-fishing of coho has been a part of harvest management for decades".

I guess the question that then begs an answer is, "Why does the State NOT discontinue known destructive practices?"

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but will accept the roll if that is the only avenue open. I hope you understand that the "Less is More" argument now being made by the same entity responsible (or at least partially) for the present condition of our fisheries is just a tad hard to swallow. The "No, really, we have the answer now" argument from the State also is just a bit like The Boy Who Cried Wolf, is it not?

My disgust has nothing to do the work of the grunts....it's the politics, I guess.

Here's a simple question for you. Has the State Department of Fish and Wildlife ever knowingly lied? Secondly, has there ever been a directive...either written, orated, or implied by the same outfit, that requested or demanded that the truth NOT be revealed?

If I'm being asked to trust what is being presented, shouldn't truth be a prerequisite?

Nothing personal.