Here's something to think about --
Gentlemen-- I've been doing some research, going back to government documents and also looking at what some of the enviros are saying as well.
There is a misunderstanding on what Hogan's ruling really is and really says. I base most of my comments on a seagrant publication discussing the Hogan decision. You can find it easily with a google search on the Hogan decision if you look at the address for Oregon's seagrant program.
Hogan's decision did not say that hatchery fish and wild fish are the same. What his ruling did say was that NMFS (now NOAA/Fisheries) could not, in this particular river, include hatchery fish as part of the ESU and then not count them when considering whether that ESU was endangered. That's it. The "hatchery fish are the same as wild fish" statement came as dicta-- from my understanding of that term, it's something like side comments-- that had nothing to do with the legal standing of the ruling. This ruling applies to no other stock, although several groups will be using it (undoubtedly) when they challenge ESA listings on other stocks. Those challenges have been filed, as I'm sure you know.
In other words, this ruling wasn't a matter of science or genetics necessarily: it was whether or not NOAA should count salmon stocks the same way in two separate situations on the same river. Judge Hogan said they had to by law.
But, oh, what a can of worms he opened.
And OC, there is some interesting reading about increased salmon enhancement funding/intent in the seagrant publication that you might want to think about.