3 ms·

I am glad that they do not discriminate on how much they charge: significant costs should be imposed on anyone wanting to further remove endangered species. I g

I am glad that they do not discriminate on how much they charge: significant costs should be imposed on anyone wanting to further remove endangered species. I get what you are saying, you may want the tree removed but if everyone got their "just this one tree" removed, then it would speed up the extinction of that tree. Does that tree seriously need to be removed? Does it have life threatening consequences to you or the surrounding area? I seriously doubt it.

derivagral 7y ago
My understanding was around the forced loss of freedom without recompense as the contention here. The GP appears to be OK with this, but the nudge from the forester implies that many people wouldn't want the headache and loss of freedom around that kind of thing. I don't know the details of the law, but I would expect that most people might choose "harvest a few trees and skip headaches" over "tolerate headaches for an abstract good feeling."