I don't disagree that the Cedar has a lot to teach us, but it's an oranges to apples comparison with the Elwha. Two very different rivers. The Cedar presents many challenges (Puget Sound, Lake Washington, and habitat compromised by development to name a few). In the case of the Elwha, now that the dams are gone, Ma Nature has a legitimate opportunity to show us what she can do when left to her own devices. If we continue to plant hatchery fish (without making any guesses as to the actual threat hatchery fish pose to wild fish), that opportunity will be lost.

I'm not an outspoken, anti-hatchery guy; I think we have a lot of evidence on the books to suggest that without hatchery supplementation, many of our rivers are currently incapable, for whatever reason, of sustaining fishable populations of anadromous fish, and as such, hatchery fish are the only thing providing us with sport fishing opportunities. That's not the case on the northern Olympic Peninsula (or, at least there are several self-sustaining populations of salmonids in that region). We have every reason to believe that the Elwha should be the river most capable of meaningful recovery. That's not to say we will see meaningful natural recovery (who really knows?), but I do think it's the best opportunity we have seen (or will likely see again) to find out just how much hope lies in the prospect of wild recovery. To squander that (and I'm pretty sure we will), would be nothing less than a shame.

I don't think we fully understand how (or even if) hatchery influence negatively affects wild fish, but I do think we have plenty of examples that suggest hatchery supplementations do not improve rates of wild recovery.