Some interesting digging there, Mr. Backtrollin. I don't have enough science to support the claim made by the plaintiffs. Steelhead genetics work in Puget Sound shows that indeed there is introgression of Chambers Ck steelhead with wild steelhead populations, some more than others. But the amazing thing to me is, when you consider the extremely large number of hatchery steelhead stocked, and the regrettably small number of wild steelhead, one might intuitively expect much higher rates of introgression. But in fact it is quite small.

WDFW's most recent steelhead research is more confounding. A multitude of variables were correlated with wild steelhead returns. As expected, the number of brood year spawners has a fairly high correlation. The number of hatchery smolts stocked in the next highest correlation, but that doesn't really prove that stocking hatchery smolts causes a lower wild population. The reason is because the years when the high number of hatchery smolts were stocked happened to coincide with the same years in which marine survival for both hatchery and wild steelhead went in the tank. I think it might be easy to misinterpret a casual effect from hatchery smolts when a different data set is showing that steelhead smolts aren't surviving long enough in Puget Sound to reach the Strait. It will be interesting to see how the experts argue these data sets. Or maybe the lawsuit won't rely on data or science.

Sg