Commercialization of nature

Hello everyone.  I have a sort of controversial idea and I wanted opinions.  I am hoping this is not a cider press discussion, but it does require some explanation first.

So here is the big, controversial statement:  I want to find a way to fully commercialize nature and wildernesses.  Now let me explain.

As I see things, habitat destruction, loss of nature, urban sprawl, and numerous other unseemly activities have taken place precisely because nature was/is viewed as a resource.  I want to tap into this but in a slightly different but substantially different way.

So in the past, nature fell because humans (Europeans were particularly notable, but still all humans) viewed not nature as important, but resources within nature as commodities.  In what eventually happened to the United States, natural products were commercialized.  I think the most dramatic example is the wholesale destruction of old growth forests.  Resources were valued, but not nature itself.

If it were possible for nature itself to be commercialized, then it would be possible (and actually even profitable, practical) for people to deliberately buy land with the full version intent of keeping it natural, perhaps even enhance nature.

I am thinking of two, imperfect examples.  First, as I live in coal country, there are plenty of old strip mines in the area in various stages of reclamation.  While I hate seeing land getting strip mined, the reclaimed land is quite beautiful.  I would think it a fascinating, rewarding job to reclaim land already mined (damage is done, time to fix it up).  A variation of this plan is that I would think strip mined land an amazing potential for a wood-be homesteader.

Second example.  Two years ago, my son and I went zip lining.  Great fun.  But the relevance here is that this particular operation was built into the forest across a ravine and through the tree canopy.  Beautiful!  And the trees are completely unharmed.  In fact. The platforms on the trees had absolutely no penetration of the tree itself.  Everything was clamped on to the trees using a series of cables, turnbuckles and the attachment points themselves were wooden blocks.  Every year or two the cables are loosened a fraction of an inch to allow for tree growth.  The place was inspected by the EPA and is considered the gold star for environmental protection.  It is even more environmentally benign than trails in the national forest as just walking on the ground does more damage than zip lining through the trees! And often those trails need maintenance!!

My point is that this was a case of nature commercialized without destruction or really any measurable harm.  The owner receives money in part due to the attractive natural setting.  This guy will not be selling his land to make room for housing that would destroy nature!!  I love it!!

So what do you all think?  Nature commercialized so that it remains natural.

I would love to hear your thoughts,

Eric

Go for it.
The more successful examples of land use that enhances the ecosystem and is also profitable the better.

Grady,

Pleased to see that you get the commercialization angle.  It would be commercialized nature itself but not the individual pieces.

Eric

I have had interest in this. I cannot remember what it is called, but basically environmental conscious people who must travel, travel as little as possible, but when they do, they pay someone like me (who had former mature forests) to replant the acreage into tree for carbon sequestering.

For me it would allow my forest to be replanted, something as a farmer I cannot afford to do myself, and allow the ones who must travel a more ethical feel about what they must do.

For me, planting trees alone would be nice, but not the ideal situation because property taxes are still high, so an annual fee to maintain them would be great though. It might be asking too much. But if anyone would have some sort of draw for this, I think it would be my 9th generation farm (1746-today). And I do not have a lot of living expenses. It is not so much a subsidy, but rather allowing me some income so I would not have to clear my remaining trees...and of course replant the trees I have already cut.

The first picture shows me and Katie in our mature forest 4 years ago, the second picture shows that forest in the same spot today. Kind of makes you want to cry doesn't it.

Just so people know the back story on the clear cut above.

I got cancer, twice, and ended up owing a lot of money for back property taxes. Crippled by cancer, I could not cut wood anymore, so I had a logger come in. He was not my first choice, but I did go to school with him, but in the end, he clear-cut 70 acres of forest, and then never paid me. To pay the property taxes I ended up selling most of my equipment off, and most of my flock of sheep. I did report the logger, and it went to court...twice because he never paid me. He has paid me some since harvesting the wood, but not all of it.