The problem as I see it, is that what is viewed in the field by the average fisherman (er...make that "above" average) doesn't gel with the "scientific" version of what is being peddled.
And statements like HxW crosses result in zero offspring doesn't help with the believe-ability......why?.......because it is BS. I can only see one way that such an event is feasible, and it would be cherry-picked data from early return wild fish spawning early with the hatchery fish and having the redd washed out by Winter flood events.
The genetics arguement......the one that says hatchery fish are genetically "different"......you know that one?.......is pretty much difficult to grasp for me. This is why. I think it is entirely possible to determine whether or not a fish came from a hatchery through genetics........what was that? Like a tree growth ring, one can tell something of the tree's past and what was going on year to year. Do you think that feeding fish the same thing day after day after day will show in their "growth rings"? Why, I'll just bet they will. Now, will the fact that hatchery fish ate hot dogs make them less fit, and dependent? Sure, it will.......for a time. If they take too long to adapt, they're going to die. But the ones who figure out to fend for themselves, feed themselves, avoid being eaten, and return to spawn are as fit as any fish. If they are "tuned" to return and spawn too early and their redds are washed away, well that is not a factor of their fitness, nor of their ability to produce......it's a factor of man's interference in the smolting process.....which is controllable.
I know it is cool to use anacronyms and many think it lends "professionalism" to a conversation. It doesn't. It only lends itself to aloofness, which doesn't wash with a lot of folks. Especially when what is being peddled is difficult, if not impossible, to sell with logic.

just my 2