Here's a list of just a few great things hatcheries have done for salmon recovery (the initial stated purpose for hatcheries):

* Polluted the wild gene pool, reducing productivity of the remaining native stocks
* Re-established fisheries in areas that SHOULD be closed, due to endangered wild stocks, thereby speeding the demise of those stocks
* Created a massive number of fish, intended for harvest, that mix in with wild fish from stocks that cannot sustain further harvest in the ocean, thereby putting endangered stocks further at risk from open ocean fisheries
* Tribes refuse to recognize any difference between wild and hatchery fish, so when they fish, they catch and kill everything they can, which in some cases has an unsustainable impact on wild fish (in watersheds where we KNOW those wild fish were bound to spawn)
* Created a bunch of fish that "must die," lest they represent a waste of public money. Unfortunately, the most effective means of getting them dead does nothing to prevent making the wild fish in the mix just as dead.

Basically, we're not getting rid of hatcheries, no matter how much better that might be for wild fish. We don't need wild salmon to have salmon fisheries. That's why the powers that be (those making court decisions like this one) don't care about wild fish recovery. All they are concerned with is keeping commercial (and, to a far lesser extent, sport) fishing going. To do that with wild fish would require no small measure of restraint in setting fishing seasons, probably for a lot of years. That represents too many years of lost profit and lost jobs to ever be a possibility in the current political environment.