Ya know EF, some of us actually follow the scientific literature consistently. An isolated incident in a news article is an illustrative anecdote, often with an issues analysis to give context. A peer reviewed scientific study including genetic sequencing of population samples in the supporting data is not biased. I'm not going to post a literature review of 25 years of peer reviewed published scientific studies on salmon genetics, but they are out there if you are interested in delving further into this issue. It's not even an issue that has received little attention, it is a major thread of fisheries research, from past times to present. The technology available in the field of genetics has had a major impact on the field of biology since we first started using genetic sequencing as a research tool.

Just a quick little JSTOR search using (salmon +genetics) turned up ~15K articles.

The alternative is for consumers to stay up on the issues regarding the food that they eat, and also the alternative is for people to learn how to evaluate information, and even to read and understand and evaluate scientific studies. The alternative is for us to have excellent science and math and social studies education in our schools for our citizens. The alternative is for us to expand our research and technology horizons. And that's my field, so yes, I have decades of alternatives. As for fisheries, loving to eat fish and other seafood was one of the main reasons I went into ecology and natural resource management in the first place, back in 1980.

I buy canned Pacific salmon most of the time. Limited selection in my small town.

EF, I have no interest in engaging you, I have zero confidence that I would learn anything constructive. I've never heard you say much of anything that isn't a platitude, apparently for your own amusement, but I could be wrong on that account. You just troll no matter what anyone says. You rattle off ridiculous insults to people you know virtually nothing about. That says it all for me.

If you want to learn more about the state and future of fish as food, here's an extensive footnoted 2020 report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. You could engage with the UN on any of the points there if you're so inclined to argue over a whole host of issues and policy suggestions. https://www.fao.org/3/ca9229en/ca9229en.pdf

They're evidently perfectly safe to eat cooked - raw can cause some gastric distress tho, according to that linked article.

Some populations of Chinook salmon are endangered or threatened. The Chinook/King salmon that are sold in grocery stores are not from those populations.

US-caught Chinook salmon are sustainably caught and managed.

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/chinook-salmon

New Zealand salmon runs are not big enough for commercial fishing, so Chinook salmon from New Zealand, such as Wegmans' King salmon, is farmed.

https://niwa.co.nz/freshwater/nzffd/NIWA-fish-atlas/fish-species/chinook_salmon

Reminds me of the recent embarassment over the Kellogg's CEO suggesting 'cereal for dinner' as a way of coping with rising food costs...

Oh, I see. You are on a slab. You might stay 5' from the foundation, just to be safe. :) Otherwise, looks good! Like it!

I love both the plants you selected, but I can tell you they won't grow in sun. Ask me how I know . . . You might be able to find a white lobelia (the perennial kind) or a white penstemon (Beard's Tongue) that has a similar shaped flower. Some of the paler gentians can take a bit more sun than turtlehead.

Two plants with somewhat "ferny" foliage are Golden Alexander, Zizia aurea, and

Comptonia peregrina, my favorite, called "Sweetfern." Hard to come by but not hard to grow, you can find it at the better native plant nurseries. It won't take standing water for long periods, but it can take wet then dry, which is the common condition of a rain garden. Both plants will not like shade on the flip side. Again, ask me how I know . . . :)