Man did that writer ever get to any conclusion? I'll have to read it again tomorrow. It's late yet I read the whole thing with my red, tired bleary eyes and it left me wondering if the writer took a stand on the matter or not?
Anyway, what I do remember was Bill Bakke's truths. Man can not possibly manufacture a wild fish. As Roderick Haig Brown once said, if you're not going to eat a hatchery steelhead at least throw it in the bushes. Those hatchery workers did it all wrong - they should have used a weir system to make sure zero got through. Then they could have given the hatchery salmon to some local businesses. That way no do-righter would call foul about the correction of a mistake, in fact that bountiful harvest might just make him feel even better about hatcheries.
There is only one way to take care of anadromous salmonids - do everything we can to let them be what they are, where they need to be it, and when. Give them the habitat and they will do the rest. Protect their sanctuaries and they will thrive.
The answer is not to change what they are into what's convenient for our self-serving purposes. The answer is to let them be.
There are strains out there that have been bonked and milked to spawn for so many generations that they don't know how to dig a redd! They are like milk cows to wild steer, ribbon-haired fufu dogs to the wolf. They could have only survived in a crowded concrete tank with antibiotics and pesticides and pellet food. They run toward the sound of footsteps, conditioned by feeding times. They eat their native brethren when the floodgates are opened in May and June.
Unlike that AP writer, I have a firm stand on hatchery fish - ZERO where native fish are trying to survive.