My interpretation was the author was implying that a lot of time and energy is being invested into the "protection" of wild stocks through hatchery propagation, which makes sense because of the potential for excess sedimentation. But, while it makes sense when looking at it through the usual scope of hatcheries being viable for increasing harvest, its potential fallacy is that the other realistic alternatives have not been properly assessed. Meaning letting the fish bounce back naturally has been taken into little consideration. This is because the Tribes and the Feds planned all this on their own accord, without seeking outside entities for guidance. I Think if it wasn't worded the way it was, it'd sound like an anti-trbal fisheries management rant. This is a good thing because what the author is saying is important.