Daily Score Blog

No creature, beside humans, penetrates the Pacific Northwest as thoroughly as salmon. In a single short lifetime a salmon may inhabit pelagic and nearshore marine waters, freshwater streams, mountains, forests, deserts, cities, and farms. Their presence is perhaps the region's defining characteristic. They are, therefore, the single best indicator of the Northwest's ecological integrity. The health of salmon is a close proxy for how extensively we have eroded our natural heritage.

They are woven in the cultural fabric of the Northwest and even into the bodies of those who have lived here: from the salmon-centric diet of early Native Americans, to gung-ho fisheries that sprung up in the 19th and 20th centuries, to the $25/pound Copper River salmon that city-dwellers eat in late spring. Their spawning ritual is certainly one of most astonishing events in the natural world. It is mysterious too--massive fish battle relentlessly, in some cases hundreds of miles upstream, for a single chance at procreation in the face of certain death.

From their death, however, springs life in many forms. Bald eagles and grizzlies feast on their carcasses and the nitrogen of their decomposing bodies enriches farmlands. Even the multitudes of younger salmon who do not reach their spawning grounds are food for birds, whales, sea lions, and otters, among many other of the Northwest's inhabitants. Salmon are, in many ways, the heart of the region's ecosystem. Connected to nearly everything, their lives support countless others forms of life.

But salmon, as everyone knows, are disappearing from the Northwest. Many runs and distinct population have already disappeared forever. Others are imperilled, finding a home on the US Endangered Species List or on Canada's "red list."

Percent of salmon stocks that are at-risk and extinct.

An excellent article on wolf reintroduction in Orion magazine. The main focus is on the evolution of our psychology and values around wolves. Here's a sneak preview:

...the culture of the west continues to be transformed gradually by an influx of people holding different, perhaps more modern, values. The old-timers are fading away and, like it or not, the new west is taking hold. Surveys show that if you're about fifty years old or more, you probably hold a pretty negative attitude towards predators; but younger people think the whole idea of killing off all the predators is a joke.... And more people have come to understand that you can't cry wolf on both sides of the issue. That is, those with anti-wolf sentiments realize that there haven't been huge problems with wolves, and even wolf advocates realize that wolves can be a pain in the ass sometimes.

Wolf reintroduction is happening not just in the northern Rockies, but in other parts of the US, such as North Carolina, the Southwest, and, by natural population expansion, in the Upper Midwest. The big question is whether people will live peacably with wolves. And a big part of the answer to that question has to do with what you see when you see a wolf.

Traveling from place to place takes a lot of our time - just under 80 minutes per person per day, according to recent figures.  But who gets a worse deal?  Is it city dwellers, who fight through downtown gridlock and congested city streets, or waste time waiting for the bus or train to finally arrive?  Or suburbanites, who benefit from freer flowing traffic, but who may have to drive for miles and miles to get to work, schools, and stores?

As it turns out, it doesn't particularly matter.  According to data from the 2001 National Household Transportation Survey, no matter where you live - city center, inner ring suburb, or urban fringe - you spend about the same amount of time getting from place to place. Just take a look:

So does location matter at all?  In fact, yes.  Total time spent traveling doesn't vary much with the density of your neighborhood, but time spent in cars, trucks, and SUVs decreases as density increases.  People living in the densest neighborhoods spend roughly a third less time driving than people living in low density neighborhoods spend (43 minutes vs. 63 minutes per day).  That means they can use those extra 20 travel minutes a day doing something else.

Imagine how much reading you could get done on the bus, streetcar, or commuter train.  The average reader could enjoy an extra 17-36 novels a year.

If you are able to work on public transit, say by reading documents or using a lap-top, you could reduce the amount of time you spend in the office.  Some people also use commute time to nap or just decompress from the work day.

Multi-tasking can involve exercise too.  In Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, only around 55% of people get the CDC recommended amount of 30 minutes of moderate activity 5 times a week or 20 minutes of vigorous activity 3 days a week.  If you live in a neighborhood where you can walk to work or bike to the grocery store, you can get your exercise while running errands.

What could you do with all that extra time?