A. Not being familiar with the fisheries management program in Connecticut, I'm not going to be able to give you very satisfactory answers to your questions; you need to talk to the local biologists who are familiar with the fisheries present and the thinking behind the stocking policies. I will, however, take a shot at some of your points. You'd be surprised how much fisheries work is done with little or attention paid to the ecological characteristics of the stream.

First, stocking as parr vastly improves the survival rate; stocking of eggs is rare, costly, and not always very efficient, especially on a large scale. I don't think it has much to do with "survival of the fittest." In fact, this attribute applies to the parr just as much as it would to the eggs. The importance of imprinting the river's "smell" would only be important if they were expecting these fish to migrate and return to spawn; your later statements make me wonder if these fish are put in only for "put-and-take" fishing, thus making imprinting of little importance. Again, not being familiar with what the biologists are trying to do makes my comments just guesses.

Your comments about ecosystem restoration raises a ton of questions, but again, without knowing details makes it difficult for me to comment. I can't understand why an Atlantic salmon restoration project is being done in a stream heavily stocked with three trout species. So, rather than wildly speculating as to what might best be done, I think I better just not say anything. Sorry.