Doing the Right Science: Lessons from Our Hatchery Review
Doing the Right Science: Lessons from Our Hatchery Review
In 2023, my coauthors and I published a review paper on hatchery programs for salmon and steelhead (McMillan et al. 2023). To our surprise, it quickly became one of the most widely read papers in the history of the journal. It has been downloaded thousands of times, circulated widely among scientists and managers, and continues to generate conversations in the fisheries world.
And yet, despite this reach, the paper hasn’t been splashed across the news cycle or promoted in flashy headlines. The success has been quieter—but perhaps more meaningful. It has been read. It has been used. It has been applied to the kinds of questions that scientists and managers are grappling with in real time.
That, to me, is what good science looks like.
And yet, despite this reach, the paper hasn’t been splashed across the news cycle or promoted in flashy headlines. The success has been quieter—but perhaps more meaningful. It has been read. It has been used. It has been applied to the kinds of questions that scientists and managers are grappling with in real time.
That, to me, is what good science looks like.
Bacon Strips are so named because they are in Bacon Creek.
Why This Paper Resonated
The core of the hatchery debate isn’t new. For more than a century, fisheries managers have released hatchery salmon and steelhead in hopes of providing fishing opportunity, rebuilding depleted populations, or offsetting impacts of dams. The science surrounding those programs has been contentious, often political, and sometimes repetitive.
When we wrote our review, our goal wasn’t to stir up controversy. It was to provide clarity. We combed through decades of studies to distill what we actually know about hatchery effects on wild populations, where the evidence is strong, and where the evidence is still thin.
That straightforward approach—summarizing the state of the science without trying to “pick sides”—is one reason the paper gained traction. People working in management need clear, accessible answers. They need to know which findings are supported by consistent, replicated evidence, and which questions remain unresolved.
The core of the hatchery debate isn’t new. For more than a century, fisheries managers have released hatchery salmon and steelhead in hopes of providing fishing opportunity, rebuilding depleted populations, or offsetting impacts of dams. The science surrounding those programs has been contentious, often political, and sometimes repetitive.
When we wrote our review, our goal wasn’t to stir up controversy. It was to provide clarity. We combed through decades of studies to distill what we actually know about hatchery effects on wild populations, where the evidence is strong, and where the evidence is still thin.
That straightforward approach—summarizing the state of the science without trying to “pick sides”—is one reason the paper gained traction. People working in management need clear, accessible answers. They need to know which findings are supported by consistent, replicated evidence, and which questions remain unresolved.
Front matter, or preliminaries, is the first section of a book and is usually the smallest section in terms of the number of pages. Each page is counted, but no folio or page number is expressed or printed, on either display pages or blank pages.
To produce perfect books, these rules have to be brought back to life and applied.
To produce perfect books, these rules have to be brought back to life and applied.
Explore Our Features
We work hard every day to make our customers' lives better and happier
Consider donating to The Conservation Angler to support work like this!