Golden Opportunities for Habitat Restoration after Wildfires in Deserts (Removal of Tamarisks)

I see the same lack of forethought and planning in desert conservation areas as with places in our National Forests in Mountains. In the mountains "IF" they even attempt to try and restore anymore, they do so a couple of years after the wildfire fact. Nature response instantaneously. But wholesale Tamarisk removal and native riparian restoration in Deserts is almost Nill. And Tamarisks are simply chocking the life out of everything. When I was a kid they were mainly in the wild down in deserts, but all riparian habitats along the SoCal coasts are having their stream and cough-cough dry riverbads inundated with them. Then when one looks at all the areas where money is wasted like, military, meaningless political pet projects and welfare. Here is an idea, put able bodied people on welfare to work doing things like the old CCC programs of the 1930s. They still get the welfare money, but instead of it being a handout, it's a hand up. No of course not, too logical. Not to mention the screaming by certain ideologically driven groups over the rights of these poor unfortunate folk.

I've also provided a collection of other posts together in references of my habitat resoration techniques that have served me without fail and also ideas on building Mesquite Dune windbreaks or Shelterbreaks for agriculture. I really am into using native Desert plants which are local to the area as opposed to species like invasive Tamarisks. These trees suck water and crowd out all native things where I come from and the authorities never seem to be in a hurry to truly eradicate these trees. The Mesquite Dune Windbreaks would be so easy and once established take care of themselves. The other problem issue with Tamarisks is they create such horrific wildfires, something the natives were never prone to.


Golden Opportunities for Habitat Restoration after Wildfires in Deserts

Kevin Franck wrote:
Here is an idea, put able bodied people on welfare to work doing things like the old CCC programs of the 1930s. They still get the welfare money, but instead of it being a handout, it's a hand up. No of course not, too logical. Not to mention the screaming by certain ideologically driven groups over the rights of these poor unfortunate folk.

There's certainly a need for more beneficial work for folks, and restoration work is desperately needed in many areas.. I take it this work would count toward the 30-55 hours of work per week the welfare recipients are already required to do? Would this restoration work be considered a permanent job for otherwise jobless people?

http://www.welfareinfo.org/

Tyler Ludens wrote:
There's certainly a need for more beneficial work for folks, and restoration work is desperately needed in many areas..

Yup couldn't agree more!

Tyler Ludens wrote: I take it this work would count toward the 30-55 hours of work per week the welfare recipients are already required to do?

Actually, I'd be happy if they would be require to do two days a week. It would give them a feeling of self-worth and an appreciation for a real life outdoors which as we all know has health benefits. This isn't real tough to understand that getting many of these people away from the purposely city environment they are stuck in could lead to motivation for a better quality of life and I'm not talking about material things.

Tyler Ludens wrote: Would this restoration work be considered a permanent job for otherwise jobless people?

Here, I'll answer your question with a question. How much work is there across the planet in restoring the natural world back to a healthy state like it once was ? Considering the unfortunately propensity of human beings to desroy and disrupt natural systems, does it seem to you that the work would be temporary or permanent ? Given the fact that most nations on Earth, especially my former residence in the United States who spend countless billions on military spending, do you think the money could be better spent elsewhere ?

Kevin Franck wrote:
Actually, I'd be happy if they would be require to do two days a week.

So, less than they are presently required to do?

Kevin Franck wrote:Here, I'll answer your question with a question.

Since this is a hypothetical discussion, I'll say yes, these are permanent jobs, because it doesn't do people much good whose lives have been disrupted by joblessness and often homelessness to take on a job and then lose it again because it is temporary.