Jon Anderson wrote:

"Just to want "more native plants" may be an unattainable goal over the
long run.... Is it better to want an "open site with large oak trees
interspaced", and maybe have to settle for red oaks with a tall
fescue/perennial ryegrass
understory?"

You made good points, Jon, but I'd still argue that red oaks don't belong
on Montlake any more than Garry oaks (even less, because that doesn't even
involve an attempt to make it more native). It would be interesting to
find out how they are revegetating landfills in the East, where a lot of
this has been done. I still can't see putting in a lot of effort trying to
get woody species established on a site in a city that's got a whole lot of
trees and wooded parks and extremely little open land and wetlands.

An open savanna (the oak groves with open understory described by Clem
Hamilton) is neither appropriate vegetation for Seattle nor at all
conducive to open-country species, which shun treed areas. This isn't
Kenya; there aren't any birds that live in savannas here. Well, I know
there are some, and I guess we could try to manage the fill for Western
Kingbirds and Western Bluebirds. Montlake should be for wildlife (i.e.,
birds), the cause of which will not be furthered by reconstruction of
native habitats that do not support the wildlife we wish to encourage.

It still comes down to the fact that the people at Urban Horticulture do
*not* seem to be on the same wave length as the rest of us. Their mission
is urban horticulture, and it and wildlife management do not necessarily
share the same goals. If anyone in tweeters feels strongly about this, as
I do, feel free to let the director, Dr. Clement Hamilton, know this
(cwh at u.washington.edu). Please convince him that they're treeing up the
wrong fill or me that I'm barking up the wrong tree!

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