I have mixed views on the decision. I have property near that area. The economy there is based on tourism and fishing. The waters there are nicknamed the "Holy Waters." While I do support increased drilling, that is one area I am concerned about drilling between the possible temperature increases (harmful to the fish that like cold water), leaks, and changes to the Au Sable River That's how alot of people feel when it actually comes down to drilling near them. A "reason" can be found not to drill in every spot where oil is suspected to be.
So, what you are saying is, "Drill, but not in MY backyard"?
No, what I'm saying is don't screw up the area. I didn't say I was against this, and I didn't say it was a good decision by the judge (although it was a great one IF the property owner had the conveyance conditionings in when he left it to the state). I haven't read the actual decision, only two news accounts from the AP and Traverse City Record Eagle (wretched eagle), hardly a credible source. If it was a conveyance case, then it's a property/contract case. As far as the Kirkland's Warbler goes, that is based on the Endangered Species Act and the statutes there, and judge is bound by that. The warbler is endangered thanks to its very limited habitat (Certain Jack Pine forests near Grayling and Roscommon) and the parasitic cowbird. The cowbird kills the eggs of the warbler and replaces it with a cowbird egg. I have no idea of the impact of this on the warbler, but I am skeptical there.
Based on a purely economic stance, if the drilling can be done without screwing the area up, I'm for it. If it kills the fishing and tourism due to the fishing, than I'm against it. Now about 20 miles north of there is one of my hunting areas. There's lots of gas wells there. It doesn't screw up the hunting. The difference is that it's not over the Au Sable River. My concern is strictly with the river, its character, and the trout fishing that goes with the river, which needs to stay around 60 degrees.