Well folks, there you have it. Any time you take a small amount of information about a subject, like hatchery / wild fish interactions, and ignore other sources of information, it's easy to reach a conclusion in support of either a positive or negative conclusion based on that set of information. The main flaw I see in the above posts is that in both cases, there is more to the story.

I haven't seen Quinn's paper or all the data regarding the Fork's Creek hatchery steelhead. Native wild steelhead in Fork's Creek are assuredly screwed because that's where the hatchery steelhead are reared and released. There is a weir at the hatchery, but every time it rains hard, which it does a lot every winter on this small coastal watershed, the returning fish just swim over the weir. The upshot is that the majority of steelhead spawners in Forks Creek are hatchery origin. I would like to know about the genetic profile of wild steelhead in the mainstem and other tributaries to understand if they are also significantly affected by the hatchery steelhead. That would be an important piece of the puzzle.

Rivrguy,

Talk about a blast from the past: "JJ" I heard he moved to Canada after retiring. Where'd you get that memo from him? JJ is a wealth of information, but it's wise to temper it with the advice I heard from a few of his co-workers. JJ often forms conclusions based on insufficient data, yet is often, BUT NOT ALWAYS, correct. I would suppose most of us are guilty of that to some degree.

What JJ reports about the 1970s Skagit genetic research is correct, as far as it went. That was the limit of our knowledge of steelhead genetics at that time. It was based on the laborsome electrophoretic genetic allozyme analysis, and the conclusions reached were based on a comparatively small sample size. Like others, I went went those conclusions and favored policies supported by that information.

Subsequently there is newer and more extensive DNA genetic analysis of steelhead, from the Skagit and elsewhere. Guess what happens when you significantly increase your genetic sampling? For one thing, you can find information that was missed in smaller samples. After stocking from 50,000 to 350,000 Chambers Creek steelhead smolts in the Skagit for over 50 years, you'd think maybe at least some small fraction of those fish successfully reproduced. And if you thought that, you'd be correct. Current genetic research of Skagit steelhead indicates some Chambers Creek genetic introgression with the native Skagit population. I think the average of all samples is about 16%, with a range from zero to 28%, varying significantly by geographic location.

For those who require simple black and white answers, I can only say, get used to disappointment. That ain't gonna' happen.

Mattie, if you're troubled with getting your information from . . . "people smarter than them,". . . I hope you're not recommending that folks get their information from people more ignorant than them, unless living in a world where ignorance is bliss is your gig.

Slab, I doubt you're being lied to. People, and agencies, can only report based on what they know. And no one has perfect knowledge. Some folks undboubtably do have an agenda, so they cherry pick their information sources and report accordingly, or in some cases, IMO, ignore the information that doesn't jive with their personal biases.

Aldo Leopold (one of those "smart" guys) wrote that intelligent tinkering means saving all the parts. Since it's pretty clear to me that we are always going to be a long ways from knowing all the answers, I want to save the parts. I want to save the viable wild steelhead runs in Puget Sound and elsewhere. And I want to keep the Chambers Creek steelhead program - at Chambers Creek, both as a laboratory and as a safety deposit box. The Chambers Creek fish cultured at the other PS locations are more or less expendable at this time when their financial and biological effectiveness is so questionable. I'm not suggesting getting rid of them, but that the near term loss would save money and not be much of a fishery loss in the systems where they cannot even return brood stock.

One last time, if you require a definitive conclusion that hatchery fish are
definitely bad or definitely good, you're gonna' be disappointed. Natural ecosystems are rarely simple.

Sg