Here are some findings from the study. Just as I thought they were ignored by the NYT. They show just the opposite result than that in the paper's article.



Furthermore, we have 3 years of data,

and combining probabilities across these three data sets

did not produce a significant result. Thus, it appears that

any difference between Hsupp fish and wild fish really is

slight.



So even by the most conservative

estimates, females taken into the hatchery should have

resulted in at least 4 to 10 times as many wild-born granddaughters

as females left in the wild.



But for the simple question of whether a supplementation

program can give a single-generation demographic boost

to a natural population of steelhead trout without obvious

short-term genetic consequences, the answer in this

case appears to be yes.



Steelhead from a supplementation hatchery (reared in a supplementation hatchery and then allowed to spawn

naturally in the wild) had reproductive success indistinguishable from that of wild fish.

Note the study did not deal with long term matters. They were not tested. As to that it simply does not attempt to make a finding.