I think this is a trick question. If you stated it as rhetorical, I don't think it is. Yes, more fish will return with a wild broodstock program supplying the hatchery fish, but a greater percentage of the returning fish will have reduced productivity. Over time, that's a big concern.

Here's another thing that concerns me about broodstock programs: They assume that all the wild fish entering River X are genetically equal. If it is the case that rivers from different drainages have fish with genes specifically advantageous to those rivers, is the same not likely true for each tributary? We pool and breed all the river's fish together (for the broodstock programs), but on a big river, there could be significant differences between subpopulations we have yet to discover. Off the top of my head, look at the Clackamas, the Wilson, and the Nehalem in Oregon. Those rivers get wild steelhead from roughly November-June, with many of them spawning in certain tribs during certain months. Often they vary in size, shape, time in the river etc. Yet on the Clack and Wilson, wild steelhead have been taken, for the broodstock program, from the mainstem, not knowing where and when they were destined to spawn. Do the resulting fish have 85% fitness on each individual trib? I doubt it.

In a way, I think the out-of-basin stocks may be a better bet because using them doesn't threaten the integrety of the wild fish's DNA. Given that habitat, not total spawners, is the most limiting factor on most NW rivers, I've reached a different conclusion about broodstock programs.