Maureen, thanks for the additional info. I'm assuming (a) you have
influence on your restoration group, and (b) that you're not offended by my
putting this discussion on the public forum. I'm sure we all would benefit
from hearing the viewpoint of others who use the fill. I keep hoping my
many, many hours of thought and writing on the place (I suspect more than
everyone else who has ever done so, combined) will spark a response.
Question, Maureen: does your group even know about the two reports dealing
with the fill that I wrote?

May I respectfully suggest that putting Garry oaks on Montlake Fill is a
waste of time, space, and effort? Garry oaks are *not* native to Seattle,
therefore you wouldn't be replacing a lost habitat. Garry oaks occur in
very dry soils, and I doubt if Montlake Fill qualifies in any way for their
ecological requirements. Garry oaks are relatively difficult to
transplant, as well as being slow-growing. Finally, and this is the big
one, there are no creatures living in Seattle that are oak specialists, so
you would be putting in a habitat that would not particularly benefit any
of the wildlife currently existing in the area. And there's no way a
little patch of oaks on the fill will attract any oak specialists. A Garry
oak grove would be quite appropriate in the arboretum for educational
purposes; at the fill, no.

Why not manage for prairie and pond alone, two scarce environments in
Seattle? Years ago when I wrote a habitat and wildlife assessment for
Magnuson Park, I suggested construction of ponds there (the manager of
*that* project also didn't pay any attention to me; good thing I don't have
a fragile ego.....). I argued strongly that birds such as shorebirds and
waterfowl, even raptors, could move between two similar ecosystems at
Magnuson and Montlake, and in that way they would have a measure of
sanctuary. A bird a few hundred feet up in the air could probably see the
ponds at the other site. I'm really glad to hear from Herb Curl that such
a thing will be happening at Magnuson.

I would argue strongly that NOTHING needs to be planted at the fill.
Management/restoration do not have to involve planting. Time should be
spent seriously attempting to *remove* plants, not only loosestrife but a
lot of the woody vegetation that is there now, and especially some of the
blackberry jungles along the east edge, which are coming close to
destroying some good viewing opportunities (although there's no question
that for every viewing opportunity destroyed, a few more birds are left
undisturbed).

A few small groves of trees & shrubs would add diversity and interest, and
these could be constituted from existing beginnings in such a way as to not
interrupt the overall open nature of the site. Right now it's a Topsy kind
of site, and planting more plants there will make it more so. All kinds of
introduced trees and shrubs are sprouting up here and there, and each one
is further compromising anything prairielike about the area.

In the days of yesteryear, it was just because the fill was undeveloped
that it attracted all of us nature enthusiasts. With the building of wider
paths and interpretive graphics, it will surely attract more and more
people of recreational mind who like open space but don't particularly
appreciate the wildlife (bird) opportunities. I've seen it; people moving
past the ponds, certainly having a good time but oblivious to the fact that
they were scaring up every bird in the place. It seems to me that the more
the paths are cleaned up and the more interpretive signs are placed, the
more "keep on the path" and "don't pick the flowers" signs will have to
accompany them.

I really think the problem is the intention to turn the site into an urban
nature trail. Can anyone explain to me why this was/is necessary? The
word "growth" comes to mind, just as when a Walmart expands its floor
space. Can't the fill be for people who don't mind getting their shoes a
little muddy? Why does everything we touch have to become all things to
all people? Bowling alleys are for bowlers, swimming pools for swimmers,
tennis courts for racketeers; can't Montlake Fill be for birders/flowerers
and *not* for everyone?

Finally, as far as people and dog control, when the pond system becomes
extensive enough, how about throwing in a few big alligators?

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


------------------------------

Go for those alligators, Dennis!!! Talk about crowd control!


Karen Juenemann at Zymo