I think that WDFW is kind of schizophrenic about the whole recovery thing...they speak good overarching policy goals about it, but the details of how they implement it sometimes, if not oftentimes, work directly against it.

At the end of the day, recovery and harvest come hand in hand...recovery is often defined as a stock reaching an abundance level that can support sustainable fisheries without having to use hatcheries to do so.

That being said, in an effort to continue to provide harvest opportunity they employ techniques, especially the desire to use broodstock programs, that directly impede recovery of the wild fish.

The thought is that continued harvest opportunity coupled with other recovery efforts will eventually recover wild fish populations, but I'm not so sure that will ever work on most, if not all wild populations.

It's unfortunate, but most "recovery" efforts do little more than slow the destruction of habitat and infiltration of undesirable phenotypic and genotypic traits into the wild populations.

Parker, I think that the wild fish genetics can eventually overcome the infiltration of hatchery influences, but only if the infiltration of hatchery influences stop...it's like the fable about the guy sticking his fingers into holes in a leaky dam...if you don't plug all the holes, the water is still coming through...and right now we've got more holes than we do fingers.

Fish on...

Todd