I agree with Juro--it's humankind's arrogance in thinking that we can do better than nature that has screwed up so much. We figured if the natural numbers of fish were good, why not get more by allowing all the eggs to hatch and all the fry to smolt and all the smolts grow big and fast...only we forgot how important natural selection is, and the result was huge numbers of big, slow, stupid smolts that could barely survive within a few generations. Turns out, nature's limiting factors were important to the health of all species, but we're learning it a bit late with fish, and apparantly not at all when you look at all the genetic engineering, gene splicing, etc that's going on in agriculture today. I know, we'll make better tomatoes, just like we made better steelhead! We'll give 'em a gene so that frost doesn't get 'em, and one so bugs don't like 'em, and better yet (this next part is actually a reality, at least for soybeans at this point, courtesy of Monsanto, the good folks who brought you Roundup), a gene that makes plants resistant to Roundup, so you don't have to be careful and can just dump the pesticide/herbicide over the entire countryside, and all the other unwanted "weeds" will disappear. Then we can eat the tomatoes.
Okay, I'm getting carried away here, but I really believe we need to stick with spending our energy on habitat, water quality, dams, and harvest issues so that nature can take care of itself at optimum levels. While the Snyder Creek concept is certainly attractive to me from a short term gain and angling standpoint, any talk of doing "better" than nature makes me nervous. Just my opinion.