Though I believe the impact of gillnetting is sometimes exaggerated, I don't feel that way about the case of the Queets. There are weeks (generally coinciding with the peak salmon and steelhead runs) where that system gets drift netted 6 and 7 days. Regardless of what you believe about whether or not that's fair, it's certainly not conducive to the large escapements required, to Carcassman's point, to make the otherwise sterile environment productive.

As with all local streams, however, despite what seems like excessive gillnetting to me, I suspect the far greater impact occurs in ocean fisheries to the north. I've probably said it before, but I think the real danger of hatchery fish is that wherever they are present, the aim is to kill every one of them above what is needed to produce the next generation. We attempt to accomplish that goal through fisheries. Especially in the case of commercial fisheries (to a lesser but very meaningful extent in sport fisheries), wild fish get killed in said fisheries; LOTS of them.

Whatever the impact of the genetic introgression WSC points to, I have to believe it's a drop in the bucket compared to the chronic overharvest of wild fish in fisheries targeting hatchery fish. Perhaps WSC recognizes this, but they choose to push the genetic agenda because they aren't optimistic that overharvest arguments will be effective in their cause... or perhaps that's naive.

I know nothing of Kurt Beardslee, but at least some of the WSC folks are people whom I believe are genuinely dedicated to the recovery of wild steelhead, and I don't want to believe they are only doing this to make a living off lawsuit settlements and nostalgic documentaries (though I hope they keep those coming; I am a sucker for fish films).