Thanks for the facts, Maureen. The ironic thing was that all these trees
were planted within a month of my having been interviewed by someone at CUH
about my viewpoints on the fill, its wildlife, and human use of it. I was
bowled over when I went out there and saw all those cute little sprouts.
My most emphatic point (and I've been making it officially and unofficially
for about 20 years) is that succession needs to be held back to keep the
fill a *unique* feature of the urban environment. Right now it's growing
up into fantastic habitat for song sparrows and towhees, which, nice as
they are, we probably have enough of in Seattle. Who would purposefully
promote large stands of Himalayan blackberries and Scots broom as the
primary habitat of a "natural" area? Yet that's what we've got. But the
growth of cottonwoods, willows, and other woody vegetation has pretty much
the same effect--moving the area toward a low woodland full of birds that
are already common in the city.

What we have scarcely any of are open-country birds (like the longspurs and
pipits that used to be regular visitors to the fill, not to mention
occasional Short-eared and Snowy owls) and *shorebirds*. The latter were
the real attraction to birders during the fill's early history, and the
succession that has taken place, primarily by purple loosestrife but also
by willows, etc., has pretty well destroyed its value for shorebirds.

Among other things, birds need places to which to escape when pressed too
closely by people, and when you have only a single pond that shorebirds,
for example, can inhabit, they will fairly soon leave the area entirely
when disturbed. Being migrants, they seem more sensitive to disturbance
than the breeding or winter resident waterfowl that come in and stay.

Seattle is full of wooded parks and wooded neighborhoods. Birds that live
in early successional shrubby areas are common throughout the area.
Mallards, Gadwalls, Canada Geese, coots and Red-winged Blackbirds are also
common throughout the area. Right now Montlake Fill is becoming better and
better habitat for these species. With a little finesse and bulldozer
work, it could become a magnet for shorebirds again. We can never bring
back the wilderness, but the national wildlife refuges have shown us that
land can be managed very effectively for target groups and species, and I
don't see any reason why the people who manage Montlake Fill can't think in
wildlife-refuge terms rather than urban-park terms. Urban horticulture is
not the same thing as wildlife management, and I have long felt that CUH
should be a little more expansive in its viewpoint toward its
responsibility to the fill and its wildlife.

I am curious whether any other tweeters share some additional feelings
about the fill. I have been increasingly saddened as the fill has become
increasingly urbanized. I understand the viewpoint that promotes such
actions, but I can only assume that making the paths wider and placing
interpretive materials at intervals will encourage more and more use. Do
the paths need to be wider? Do there need to be interpretive signs at
intervals? With more and more use I imagine (1) the larger numbers of
people will make it a less enjoyable experience, and (2) it may result in
fewer birds (how to distinguish that alternative from the "fewer birds
because of habitat change" alternative?). It was really neat in the good
ol' days when you could wander around the fill and feel you were out in
someplace sort of special (like an abandoned land fill), much like the
vacant lots I frequented as a kid. It's always this way when you discover
a place early in its history....and go ahead and label me as an elitist, I
guess I deserve it.

Dennis Paulson, Director phone: (206) 756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax: (206) 756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail: dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416