Interestingly enough, the WFC complaint doesn't mention incidental mortality from the recreational fishery on the hatchery fish as one of the forms of "take". Not sure why that is.

The allegations regarding how the hatchery programs constitute "taking" of threatened fish under the ESA are in paragraphs 42-47. Again, worth a read if you're interested in the topic.

Tasty Salmon, nothing in the statutory definition of "take" requires death of a listed fish. For example, "harm" and "harassment" count as forms of take as well. I'm wondering if there is some other basis for your statement that you need quantifiable deaths to show take.

A complaint always presents a one-sided view of things, but I think it would be awfully hard to deny that some take is occurring through the hatchery programs. In that posture, the decision to stop releasing smolt rather than fighting the complaint tooth and nail (thereby reducing both the fees you pay your own attorneys to defend a tough case and the amount of the opposing party's fees, which you are at a serious risk of being ordered to pay) makes some sense.