One of the purposes of the HSRG was to recommend improvements in hatchery performance so that wild fish aren’t adversely effected. Their recommendations often resulted in fewer hatchery fish being raised and released.

But hatchery reform will not succeed unless there is harvest reform too. Wild fish and hatchery fish may or may not be genetically compatible. There is lots of debate on that issue. However, there is NO debate on the difference in exploitation rate.

We can harvest around 90% of the hatchery fish, and still have enough for broodstock for the hatchery. However, harvest on wild fish ain’t anywhere close to 90%. It’s probably closer to 10%, depending on the river system.

So if we plan on harvesting the hatchery fish at a rate compatible with productivity of the hatchery (e.g., 90%), the wild fish go extinct. Conversely, if we harvest at the rate of wild fish productivity (e.g., 10%), the hatchery will be overrun with hatchery adults that weren’t caught. In that case, the purpose of the hatchery can be questioned if we can’t catch 90% of the fish they produce.

Historically, the end result is that we catch the hatchery fish, and the wild fish go extinct. This has happened repeatedly in the PNW and elsewhere. Adding more hatchery fish won’t help. Neither will casting the HSRG recommendations out the window.

I agree with FishDoc that a river in its natural state is the best ‘hatchery’ we have. The problem is the productivity of that river may only allow catch-and-release (particularly on steelhead), given the number of anglers who are targeting these fish, the normal low productivity of wild fish, and the precarious state of the river habitat and the ocean conditions.

If at some point in the future the rivers in the PNW resemble those in Alaska, we might be able to have a high exploitation rate on wild fish. Like they do in Alaska.
But until then, wild fish and hatchery fish will continue to be incompatible.