If those on both sides of this issue where honest, things would be much better.
It annoys me to no end when I attend mule deer, sage grouse, migration, etc. meetings and have to listen to some 20 something year old testify that oil and gas have no impact on wildlife, habitat, migration corridors, etc.
It also annoys me when the same 20 something year old on the other side of the issue has their hair on fire over development they've never even seen in the first hand and likely only read about.
However, for someone to claim that planting some grass along side roads needed for oil and gas development, is somehow enough mitigation for the impacts of the development is just ridiculous. Equally as ridiculous is saying that 1/2 mile spacing is "good enough" in every case.
There are areas, in particular migration corridors, where 1/2 mile spacing isn't enough. An example would be a pinch point/bottleneck on a migration corridor that is only a few miles wide. I think NSO in those areas is absolutely needed and fully warranted. There are critical areas for raptors, sage grouse, etc. that 1/2 mile spacing isn't going to cut it either, again NSO is probably not only warranted, but necessary.
There has to be a balance, and sincere thought given to how development of all kinds is impacting wildlife, and how we can go about mitigating those impacts. If the impacts cant be mitigated, vetted, and the necessary work funded, then I will oppose the project. IMO, if collaboration happens, and we accept a give-and-take approach, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. That takes a lot of open minds and a lot of work, many don't have the stomach for it.
