159 



but the preservation of very small, highly inbred and supposedly wild populations that 

 represent mere fragments of historical salmon runs. 



Implications for Habitat Protection 



The NMFS captive breeding program relies on very gradual increases from such low 

 starting numbers that, al best, it will take decades to rebuild the threatened and endangered 

 Snake River salmon runs. A sad consequence of such an extended timeline is its potential use 

 as a rationale for indefinitely postponing habitat restoration and protection. There is less 

 incentive to revive and maintain healthy lakes and streams in the Snake River Basin (and 

 elsewhere) when no significant numbers of fish are going to be put back in these waters for 

 years to come, if ever. 



By excluding segments of the salmon populations, NMFS policies and practices may 

 actually hasten the loss of the very populations we are fighting to save. By concentrating on 

 the study of protein molecules, the agency is losing sight of the bigger basinwide problem of 

 salmon depletion. 



While looking through the wide end of the telescope, the ESU policy fails to 

 recognize the role of salmon in the ecosystem. Highly migratory species in general and 

 salmon in particular are to aquatic ecosystems as rain is to the hydrologic cycle. They are a 

 biological link between ocean and freshwater ecosystems. Abundant and diverse salmon runs 

 are required for the productive life of many oligotrophic lakes and streams. Salmon are vital 

 food source for many species, including humans, and for the Northwest's indigenous 

 peoples, salmon also provide cultural sustenance. 



What may be the most alarming related development in the Columbia Basin is the 

 institutionalization of ESU as the operational philosophy for fish restoration-whether or not 

 the salmon runs in question are listed under the Endangered Species Act. Such a development 

 could prevent rather than aid salmon recovery. 



The ESU approach is similar to a trend in current state and federal habitat and fish 

 production policies in which managers operate on the basis of remnant fish run management. 

 As with the ESU policy, this kind of management deals with fragmented populations as if 

 each were the historical population. For example, because each dwindling fish run is consid- 

 ered separate and distinct, none is acceptable as broodstock for supplementing fish runs else- 

 where in the basin. In this way, managers think they are preserving genetic uniqueness. 



Many regional business and political leaders also seem satisfied to support the 

 preservation of a smattering of Columbia River salmon as a reminder of something called 

 "our wild heritage. " However, under remnant run (or ESU-style) management, the 

 numerous, small and isolated fish run fragments will continue to be threatened by inbreeding 

 and vulnerable to local extinction from environmental and natural disasters. 



