Interesting analogy, but it would be more accurate to characterize a hatchery strain as say the 'Tacoma Strain' as oppose to the 'Smith Strain', since the original stocks were from entire watersheds as oppose to just a few handfuls of fish. But given the very little influx of new genetic material over the 40 to 50 years that many hatchery stocks have been around, they are indeed less robust--smaller, weaker, lower ocean survival.

But its important to point out that the genetic diversity present in the original stocks are such that they haven't succumbed to disease or the inability to survive in given habitats and conditions. A more accurate analogy would be that we have taken a town of folks and put them on the planet
Hatchery, where they can only reproduce with each other. Eventually they will change from the rest of us 'wild' folks, but die out? Not necessarily.

This is not inbreeding, but selective breeding. In this case, genetic attributes are not being specifically selected, except maybe early return, but dictated by hatchery costs and efficiency. This again makes for a less robust fish. After all, a hatchery on a budget is no substitute for mother nature.

I guess my point is that our hatchery programs are far from perfect (in the genetic sense), but I would certainly not characterize it as 'ridiculous'. The fish our hatcheries produce are not 'inbred' and after 40-50 years of hatchery production, there has yet to be a catastrophic genetic failure that has eliminated a run.

If there were, maybe the State could shake a little more money this way and begin State-wide wild brood stock programs.