Hatchery-based management, which still persists in some natural resource agencies, has, by definition, the shortcoming of being tool-oriented rather than resource-oriented. There is little in management that emphasizes artificial propagation and stocking that really contributes to the stewardship of any natural resource. Instead, it interjects an unnatural resources, often as a way to avoid truly caring for the natural one. Sometimes artificial propagation is intended to stabilize fishery harvest by making up for recurrent dips in natural fish abundance caused by environmental fluctuations. This in itself is biologically and economically questionable. Intermixed is the common hope to offset our failure to protect the habitat resource or, by inadequate control of harvest, and failure to protect the fish population itself. But stocking is unlikely to affordably offset these failures in the long run. Thus, artificial breeding and stocking have little to do with genuine fishery resource stewardship and should be regarded as mainly a last resort in salvaging a population, or as only a very temporary measure in trying to restore a natural stock, such as a salmon run.
What forms do the shortcomings of artificial propagation take? They are many but fall into two general categories: (1) post-stocking performance of hatchery-produced fish is inferior to performance of wild fish and (2) hatchery programs harm wild fish. The first means waste; the second, damage.
The poor post-stocking performance occurs for some 26 reasons, of which three are matters of anatomy, nine are primarily physiological, and 14 are mainly behavioral.
The harm to wild populations can happen in at least 19 ways, seven due to the effects of hatchery facilities and operations, ten by actions of hatchery fish and two indirectly via effects on humans.