The HSRG never said their recommendations would lead to recovery, rather they would lead to improvements in productivity and abundance of many of the Columbia River populations. In other words, a lot better situation than these populations are in now. Another independent science group, the Recovery Implementation Science Team (RIST) agreed, saying:

“Some of the specific thresholds recommended by the HSRG, such as limiting the proportion of hatchery strays from segregated programs to 5-10%, may or may not be sufficiently protective to allow full recovery. However, achieving these proportions ....would be a large improvement over the current situation. Similarly, the "proportionate natural influence" (PNI) goals of 0.5-0.7 for integrated hatchery programs may or may not be sufficiently protective to ultimately contribute fully to recovery of natural populations, although in many cases they too would be an improvement upon the status quo.”

I guess neither group was that interested in your opinion of the science. And I will repeat that increasing selective harvest was in fact part of the HSRG solution, not a solution in and of itself. Whether or not this group wrote a white paper on harvest is inconsequential.