I think you hit the main issue head on, Mike. My previous reading about
the proposals for breaching the dikes at the Skagit WMA noted that those
doing the work were aware of access issues for bird watching and that
they were exploring ways to provide access to the remainders of the dikes
in a series of out-and-back walkways. I realize that funding issues could
make this problematic, but I think it is in the best interest of the
birding community to let the WDFW and others involved in the project know
that the bird watching community would like to retain access to the
Skagit WMA throughout and after the breaching project.

I wonder if any graduate students or individual birders are planning to
study the impact of the breaching on bird species? It sounds like a great
opportunity to study how birds adapt to the change and it could be a
great case study for dike breachings that will be required in the future
as state and national officials try to make changes in human-altered
habitat in an effort to save endangered salmon species and to live within
the regulations imposed by the Endangered Species Act.

Stepping away from the specific site at the Skagit WMA, it should be
noted that dike breaching on an even more grand scale is proposed for the
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge - a site that is even more of an oasis
of habitat in the midst of urban growth to the south in Olympia/Lacey and
to the north in Tacoma and Dupont. These kinds of tradeoffs between
access and allowing nature to reclaim artificial sites like the Skagit
WMA and the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge are sure to become hotly
debated topics in the coming years...

Rob McNair-Huff ---------- mailto:rob at whiterabbits.com
White Rabbit Publishing -- http://www.whiterabbits.com/
Mac Net Journal ---------- http://www.macnetjournal.com/
The Equinox Project ------ http://www.whiterabbits.com/weblog.html

>I wonder how much of this discussion is really about habitat
>issues and how much of it is about human access. About loss
>of a walkway and access to shrubby habitat versus loss of shrubby
>because of its intrinsic value for birds....
>
>Maybe if the breaching could be accomplished with raised walkways
>added. I suspect that if access were not lost many who are currently
>skeptical about this effort might be pleasantly surprised by
>an increase in avian diversity.
>
>This has been shown to be the case elsewhere...
>
>
>As to the role of salmon in PNW ecosystems, I recommend getting
>hold of:
>Cederholm, C.J., D.H. Johnson, R.E. Bilby, L.G. Dominguez,
>A.M. Garrett, W.H. Graeber, E.L. Greda, M.D. Kunze, B.G. Marcot,
>J.F. Palmisano, R.W. Plotnikoff, W.G. Pearcy, C.A. Simenstad,
>and P.C. Trotter. 2000. Pacific Salmon and Wildlife - Ecological
>Contexts, Relationships, and Implications for Management. Special
>Edition Technical Report, Prepared for D.H. Johnson and T.A.
>O'Neil (Manag. Dirs.), Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon
>and Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
>Olympia.
>
>
>--
>Mike Patterson
>Astoria, OR
>celata at pacifier.com
>
>I do not know which to prefer,
> The beauty of inflections
> Or the beauty of innuendoes,
> The blackbird whistling
> Or just after.
>
> - Wallace Stevens
>
>http://www.pacifier.com/~mpatters/bird/bird.html