>>2780563
Coastal Alaska, but it's also a pain in the ass to live there.

Patagonia

>>2780588
I always forget that this place exists. Idk much about it, like if it brings typical South American shit like crime, but as far as nature goes I would love to life there. I saw some video where a guy moved there and everything cost him less than $10k. He lived in a sort of shack/mobile home but his front and backyard was field and forest. And spent under $1000/month to get by. I may make that my goal to move there
>>2780584
Maybe. I tend to think of it as pretty depressing from how it’s always been described. The type of place you move to for work because sometimes wages and COL ratios are good, but that you GTFO of asap

Definitely the Pacific northwest, if you're ok with a salty lake instead of an ocean Utah works too since it has a gorillion biomes that are all close to each other

no

>>2780563
northern alberta
just for the ease of access
oil companies have built a lot of good roads in very remote areas that are all public land
camp as much as you want for free, as long as you move your camp once a month
its not uncommon for me to have a decent unnamed lake all to myself

File: 3353828577884972.jpg (2.59 MB, 1800x1350)

2.59 MB JPG

>>2780584
>Alternatively what place do YOU choose which may have different criteria than mine above, and why?

I like Appalachia. Everything is so green and alive and if you go on a cloudy day and there's been some rain recently the waters rush and it's a lot of fun.

The fishing is ok, they stock most the streams, but building railroads through every holler and along every creek changed the course of the rivers and dried up their micro-feeder streams.

The only beaches are on man-made lakes, but the water is warm (compared to a river) and clean.

The forests are a mix of icky brushy scrub where they logged and then it caught fire, but there's small patches of second and old growth where you can see the true potential.

>>fossils & gems/cool stones and rocks
there's nice rock formations you can have sheer cliffs of sandstone that you can get up on, under and next to. If you find an area where coke-making was prominent you can find a lot of crumbled brick, slag, and other rocks/metallic materials lining the old roadbeds.

And, unlike say Alaska and Patagonia, it's not a world-famous attraction so it won't be too crowded outside of the most popular things.

>>2780563
New Zealand. It’s fucking great here.
Depending on the weather I can decide to surf, whitewater kayak, tramp, rock climb, or ski, and be doing it between 5min and an hour from home.

>>2780563
Idaho

File: med_15678_4750939905e7ce2(...).jpg (35 KB, 250x167)

35 KB JPG

>>2780563
>What state, or part of the planet checks all the boxes?
I haven't ever been to a place that ticks off all the criteria you've mentioned. However the closest thing that comes to mind is Sweden. I've never really traveled outside of Europe, but their nature is amazing, fishing is great and if you don't live in any big cities the chances of seeing any nig nogs are absolutely 0.

>Alternatively what place do YOU choose which may have different criteria than mine above, and why?
I'd choose Romania because the climate is just so great nowadays. It is always sunny, even in winter and the outdoors.... Is just incomparable with most of Europe. The demographic collapse of this country has made it so that more and more people leave especially the remote parts, so nature is taking over.
I can not count the amount of abandoned villages I have explored there. That little country has it all really, granted it is rather densely populated bit that problem will fix itself in the coming decades. The Carpathians are just a joy to hike on, not to steep not too hilly you can reach almost any place on game trails and backroads. That'd be my pick.

>>2784505
>or annoying soifolk
Unfortunately NZ fails here, also cost of living is ridiculous.