How should wildlife species like grouse or deer be valued, and how should that value be balanced against the economic interests of a company like Questar? What, if anything, should Questar be doing differently?

The description is summarized in the clarification section below, according to the particular circumstance.

Explanation:

Mostly with rising economic company's best interest including Questar, maintaining wildlife species including grouse as well as deer protected has become much more important. It is not only just the economic gain but also the ecological advantage that would not affect wildlife animals. Preserving the natural environment seems to be the most fundamental way of evaluating animal habitats. The same as deer, animal species should be covered in their habitat. It may also become extinct by upsetting them. The ecosystem is, thus, an important one that should have been taken note that to value certain native wildlife. But because service providers like Questar, who are rocky mountain oil producers, have quite a several financial advantages by exploration in that field, however, this contributes to mining, etc. in something like a wide coverage of the region which destroyed the habitat.Companies should preserve the balance, such as invading the field which is far less occupied by endangered species, reexhibiting certain organisms to a safer location, or putting the region back into the very same old role.

So quester should do these things completely differently, to protect the ecological balance.

Ibelieve the answer i'd medicaid.