The problem is this -- the HGMPs, the hatchery RMP, and those 1999 guidelines were developed in isolation. There was very little reference to harvest programs and zero reference to habitat restoration, and, most importantly, habitat protection. But, for recovery to happen, all these Hs must work together. If they don't, you run into the problem of producing fish in conservation hatcheries with no habitat for the fish to utilize. The comanagers and the HSRG have also ignored the fact, now starting to be demonstrated with research, that hatchery-origin fish can have a role in recovery, the nature of the role depends on the status of the particular watershed involved. I originally thought this was the point of the original post, which is why I thought it was good.

As far as the tribes or the state following or not following something, I reject the "us vs,. them" framework. As far as your not being up on the work done since the original HGMPs were filed, I'm sorry that the work of various government agencies is not fully open to you because lots of work has been done since then. I know there is resistance to opening up the processes, some of which is, unfortunately, valid because of the propensity of some organizations to file lawsuits. But I have always pushed for a fully open process, and i suggest that everyone here demand nothing less.