To my recollection the formal idea of "gene banks" arose out of HSRG review of the State's steelhead hatchery program in the early part of this century. The idea was with the uncertainty of hatchery and wild steelhead interactions on the spawning grounds a way to insure that in major steelhead a portion of the wild genetic profile could be preserve by establishing areas where the amount of hatchery influence could be control/limited by ending the release of hatchery fish in that area.

WDFW took that idea a step further by including the need for gene banks in its Statewide Steelhead Management Policy adopted in early 2008. Generally part of the process of establishing a gene bank is a review of the suitability of the wild population as a gene bank and if needed hatchery releases would end. While there were and still are major areas (especially in Puget Sound) that would qualify as gene banks that would not require any new changes in hatchery release but to date had not been formally declared gene banks.

In short the existence of the idea of gene banks and the policy directing the establishment of them had nothing to do WFC lawsuits.

The Skagit is an interesting case. By 2008 hatchery releases had ended on the Sauk portion of the basin; in addition beginning that year the Sauk has been managed under selective gear rules with CnR rules for all fish except fin clipped steelhead. In effect the Sauk exceeds the requirement of being a gene bank and the concept taken a step further by being a de facto wild salmonids management where not only is the population protected from hatchery genetic influences management allows the full expression of full diversity (include alternate life history) of the basin's steelhead.

While still not formally declared a "gene bank" the Sauk is more conservatively managed than any existing gene bank and is three times larger than any designated gene bank to date. Clearly that is not enough for some folks.

Curt