>>883191>Sadly, not much can be done that really helps. It would basically mean buying land and removing human influence until there isn't any left.Exactly. And I don't have the cash to do this or I would.
>You would then have to patrol and fence it in to prevent human activity.That's the easy part. The hard part is having enough cash to afford the land to begin with. Buildings (nature center, warehouses/utility sheds, etc.) would be the next major expense that's outside my current budget. And then of course any animals that would have to be bought would be a much cheaper consideration.
>Then you would have to pay property taxThat's not a big issue, especially if a non-profit owns the land. Then it's a non-issue.
>Suddenly letting loggers, hunters or tourists in looks kind of ok.Not to me. But yeah, I know greed is why people do this.
>Thats what happens in Germany at least, human activity everywhere.That's what happens everywhere.
>>883203That's very close to my goal, but I wouldn't want to do it on the coast exactly.
>>883286Yes yes, it's those conservatives that are so great for nature. I don't know why I ever ask anything on a site that's almost exclusively White male sociopaths. I should know better by now. Why does the right do absolutely nothing but lie all the time?
